1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. Contempt Petition No. 45 of 2006 in Writ Petition No. 530 of 1994 (Decided) (Dineshkumar Jeevanlal Jobanputra Vs. Mr. Chandrashekhar Keshavrao Thakre & ors.) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's Orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. S.V. Purohit, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr. R.N. Khare, Adv. for R-1. Mr. Mardikar, Adv. for R-2. Mr. N.R. Saboo, Adv. for R- 3,5 and 6. Mr. Anjan De, Adv. for R-4. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATE : 20 th MARCH, 2009 By this petition, the petitioner seeks action against the respondents for willfully disobeying the order passed by the High Court on 24/1/2005 on Civil Application No. 7174 of 2004 in Writ Petition No. 530/1994. The petitioner is the original tenant of respondent nos. 1 and 2 who were the original landlords. The respondent nos. 5 and 6 are presently the owners of the suit property. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 were granted permission by the Rent Control Appellate 2 Authority under Clause 13(3)(vi) of the Rent Control Order. The order dated 31/5/1993 was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 530/1994. The Court had, while issuing Rule in the said Writ Petition on 9/8/1994, also granted interim stay of possession. It is the case of the petitioner that during the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 had removed the locks of the petitioner on the suit premises and, therefore, a Civil Application No. 7174/2004 was filed by the petitioner seeking permission to remove the locks and for taking appropriate action against the respondent nos. 1 and 2. The Court considered the application on 14/12/2004 and directed the parties to maintain status quo till further orders. On 24/1/2005, the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 made a statement before the Court that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 had not put any lock on the suit premises and had not taken the suit premises under their occupation. The learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 further made a statement that the respondents did not have 3 any objection if the petitioner removes the lock which was put on the premises by somebody else. Under such circumstances, the Court, by an order dated 24/1/2005, permitted the petitioner to remove the lock, if any, and disposed of the civil application. It is necessary to note that though such statement was made on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 by their learned counsel, as a matter of fact, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 had sold the suit property on 3/9/2004 by registered sale deeds. It was mentioned in the sale deeds that the respondent no. 6 was already in possession of the suit property. It was the case of the petitioner in the application filed in the writ petition that the locks were put on the premises by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 on 26/9/2004. It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of passing of the order dated 25/1/2005, the respondent nos. 1 to 6 had removed the locks put by the petitioner on the premises on 1/2/2005 in pursuance of the order dated 24/1/2005 and, thus, deliberately and willfully flouted the order passed by the Court on 4 24/1/2005. It is averred in this petition that the respondent nos. 3 and 4 also appeared on the spot on 1/2/2005, and quarreled with the petitioner, tore the order dated 24/1/2005 and subsequently, when the petitioner went to lodge the report in the Police Station, damaged the doors of the suit premises and also removed the same. These actions, according to the petitioner, were committed by the respondents in willful defiance of the order passed by the High Court on 24/1/2005. After the issuance of the notice to the respondents, the respondents put in their appearance and also filed their replies on affidavits. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 filed separate replies, stating therein that they were not involved in the incident dated 1/2/2005. It is stated on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 in their replies that they had nothing to do with the property after 3/9/2004 when the suit property was sold by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to the respondent nos. 5 and 6, by two separate sale deeds. According to the respondent nos.1 and 2, there was no question of committing the contempt of the order passed 5 by the High Court on 24/1/2005 as the statement was made on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 before the High Court on 24/1/2005 that they had no objection if the petitioner would place his own lock on the suit premises and would remain in possession thereof. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 sought for the dismissal of the contempt petition against them. The respondent nos. 3, 5 and 6 also filed the joint reply and stated therein that the respondent no.3 had no concern with the suit property though the respondent nos. 5 and 6 had purchased the same by the registered sale deeds dated 3/9/2004. It was stated in the reply that the recital in the sale deeds regarding possession was not correct and the contempt proceedings against the respondent nos. 5 and 6 were liable to be dropped as there were no allegations against the respondent nos. 5 and 6 of committing any act of contempt. It was stated in the reply that the respondent nos. 3, 5 and 6 were not parties to the order dated 24/1/2005 and the order was fraudulently obtained behind the back of the respondents. 6 They submitted in the reply that they had not disturbed the possession of anybody and the allegations made by the petitioner against them were totally false and misleading. The respondent no.4 filed his submissions and also filed an additional affidavit on 27/2/2009. It is the case of the respondent no.4 that as a matter of fact, the respondent no.4 had entered into an agreement that the petitioner and the respondent no.4 was funding the litigation between the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and the petitioner. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent no.4 that the order dated 24/1/2005 was obtained in the writ petition by the petitioner by playing fraud on the Court. It was stated on behalf of the respondent no.4 that the respondent no.4 had deposited an amount of Rs. 29,135/- which was directed to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent nos. 1 and 2. A copy of the agreement executed between the respondent no.4 and the petitioner and a document issued by the Wana Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd., showing the payment of Rs. 29,150/- by the demand draft is also 7 annexed to the affidavit-in-reply. It is stated in the affidavit that Civil Application Stamp No. 4792/2005 was also filed by the respondent no.4 in Writ Petition No. 530/1994 to bring these facts to the notice of the High Court. Certain other documents are also annexed to the reply to substantiate these submissions. In the additional affidavit-in-reply filed on 27/2/2009, it is categorically denied by the respondent no.4 that he had quarreled with the petitioner, manhandled him and threatened him with dire consequences. It is further denied that the respondent no.4 damaged and removed the doors of the premises in question. It is submitted in the additional affidavit that it is the petitioner who removed the locks and the doors of the premises in question. Some of the facts stated in the reply are reiterated in the additional affidavit filed on 27/2/2009. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the affidavits filed by the respondents along with the documents annexed thereto, it is clear that the proceedings against the respondent nos. 1 and 2 need to be dropped. The respondent nos. 1 8 and 2 had already sold the property in question to the respondent nos. 5 and 6, on 3/9/2004 and they had nothing to do with the property on the date of the passing of the order dated 24/1/2005 or thereafter on 1/2/2005. As a statement was made on their behalf on 24/1/2005 that they had no objection if the petitioner removed the lock on the premises and took the possession of the property, at the most, it could be said that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 ought to have disclosed to the High Court on 24/1/2005 that they had already sold the suit property to the respondent nos. 5 and 6 on 3/9/2004 and, therefore, they had nothing to do with the suit property. However, this failure on their part cannot result in holding that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 have willfully and deliberately flouted the order passed by this Court on 24/1/2005. Similarly, the contempt proceedings against the respondent nos. 3, 5 and 6 also need to be dropped as no specific allegations are levelled against the respondent nos. 5 and 6 in the contempt petition. Though the respondent nos. 5 and 6 have purchased the 9 property on 3/9/2004, they were neither parties to the writ petition nor were represented at the time of passing of the order dated 24/1/2005. All the three respondents i.e. respondent nos. 3, 5 and 6 have categorically denied that they had removed the locks placed by the petitioner on the premises on 1/2/2005 or had committed any act which could result in holding that they had committed the contempt of Court. As regards the respondent no.4, it is necessary to note that the respondent no.4 had filed a civil application in the Writ Petition No. 530/1994 stating therein that the respondent no.4 was actually in possession of the property and was funding the litigation between the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and the petitioner. I had called for the record on Writ Petition No. 530/1994 and had perused the said application. Along with the said application, several documents are annexed by the respondent no.4 to show that there was an agreement between the respondent no.4 and the petitioner and the respondent no.4 was actually funding the litigation between the 10 petitioner and the respondent nos. 1 and 2. This application was not decided by the High Court while, or before deciding the Writ Petition No. 530/1994. Be that as it may, the same stand has been reiterated by the respondent no.4 in this contempt petition also. It, therefore, appears that there is a serious dispute between the petitioner and the respondent no.4, as to who is in possession of the property in question. Normally, this Court would have send the matter for an enquiry in regard to the alleged acts committed by the parties on 1/2/2005, but more than four years have lapsed thereafter and it would not be just and proper, in this peculiar situation, to direct the holding of an enquiry in regard to the alleged acts as the same would not be fruitful after the lapse of period of four years as the alleged acts of contempt are allegedly committed on 1/2/2005. The dispute between the petitioner and the respondent no.4 as regards the agreement entered into between them, the funding of the litigation and the rival claims of possession, needs an adjudication, and that cannot be done in this contempt 11 petition. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the contempt proceedings against the respondent no.4 also need to be dropped specially in the face of the application which was already filed by the respondent no.4 in Writ Petition No. 530/1994 and the documents which are filed by the respondent no.4 along with the civil application and in this contempt petition also, though those are seriously disputed by the petitioner. In the result, it is necessary to drop the contempt proceedings against all the respondents and hence, they are dropped. The notice issued by this Court on 28/4/2006 stands discharged. The contempt petition is disposed of accordingly with no orders as to costs. JUDGE RMP