HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CONTA No. : 1 of 2001 Decided on: 13.12.2011. Ram Pal, son of late Bhagat Ram, Caste Khatri, Shop-keeper, Main Bazar, Mehatpur, Tehsil and District Una, Himachal Pradesh. ……… Appellant. Versus Rattan Chand, son of Shri Rikhi Ram, Resident of Village Mehatpur, Tehsil and District Una, Himachal Pradesh. ………Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. For the appellant: Mr.Naresh K. Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr.Ajay Sharma, Advocate. Justice V.K. Ahuja, J.: This is an appeal filed by the appellant and one Parkasho Devi (now dead) under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act against the order, dated 27.4.2001, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in COPC No.17 of 2000. Vide the impugned order, appellant Ram Pal was punished and ordered to be sent to simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of `2,000/-. Appellant Parkasho Devi, whose name was ordered to be deleted from the party array, was also ordered to pay a fine of `2,000/-. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Single Judge, the present appeal has been filed. - 2 - 2. Facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the respondent/landlord had sought eviction order against the appellants from the Rent Controller, Una, which ended in a compromise and the eviction order was to be stayed till 31.3.2000 on furnishing undertaking to handover the vacant possession on or before 31.3.2000. The appellants furnished the undertaking, as ordered by the Court in Civil Revision No.19 of 1999. It was further alleged that a new development took place that since the premises were in possession of one Bhagat Ram, predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, Madan Lal, the other son of deceased Bhagat Ram, was in possession of the demised premises and the appellants were not in a position to handover the possession to the respondent as Madan Lal was in possession. The respondent/landlord had filed an execution petition for getting the possession and Madan Lal, brother and son, respectively, of the present appellants filed objections before the executing court asserting that the order of eviction had been procured by fraud and misrepresentation, which is not binding on him. The objections filed by Madan Lal are under adjudication before the executing court. 3. It was further alleged that when the objections filed by Madan Lal were pending, respondent chose to file the contempt petition concealing the fact of filing the execution and the objections filed by Madan Lal. The appellants, who were arrayed as respondents in the contempt proceedings, submitted their reply that since the respondent has already filed the execution and in which the objections at the instance of Madan Lal are being adjudicated upon, the - 3 - contempt petition is premature. They also reiterated that they are unable to handover the possession since it is with Madan Lal. The learned Single Judge held the appellants guilty and sentenced them, as detailed above. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 5. During the course of hearing of the present appeal, the following order was passed by this Court on 26.10.2010: “The first appellant will file an affidavit as to whether he has vacated the shop and if so when and whether he has already paid the fine.” 6. Thereafter, the affidavit was filed by the appellant to the effect that the amount of fine of `4,000/- imposed by the Court has already been deposited. It was pleaded that appellant No.2 had died. Appellant No.1 was sent to simple imprisonment on 5.5.2001 and was released on 11.5.2001 in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court. No counter affidavit was filed by the respondent denying these allegations. 7. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that one of the appellants has already died, the amount of fine has already been deposited and one of the surviving appellant has already suffered simple imprisonment for 7 days and as such the order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside or modified. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that even after the handing over of the - 4 - possession by the appellant, as per the affidavit filed by him, the possession has again been taken by the appellant, who has also filed a civil suit and as such the sentence imposed upon the appellant deserves to be maintained. In support of these submissions, the learned counsel for the respondent has not filed any affidavit denying the allegations made by the appellant in the affidavit that he has already handed over the possession. In case any suit has been filed by the appellant, which is still pending, no observations can be made in regard to the maintainability of the said suit since there is nothing on the record in this regard that possession was again taken by the appellant. However, keeping in view the developments that had taken place that one of the appellant is already dead, the amount of fine has been deposited and one of the appellants has also suffered simple imprisonment for 7 days, while maintaining the order passed by the learned Single Judge holding the appellants guilty for contempt of court, we are of the opinion that the sentence imposed deserves to be modified to the extent that the fine, as imposed, shall be maintained and the sentence imposed upon appellant Ram Pal is modified to the one already undergone. The appeal is allowed partly and stands disposed of accordingly. (Kurian Juseph), Chief Justice. December 13, 2011 (V.K. Ahuja), (tilak) Judge.