IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.A.C.P. No.2 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 26.8.2009 Amar Singh. -----Appellant Vs. Ramesh Chand and another. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR Present:- Mr. Sarjit Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. J.S. Puri, Advocate for respondent No.1. ----- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, convicting the appellant for contempt and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. 2. The appellant entered into an agreement to sell the suit land on 25.1.1993 to the respondents. Sale deed was to be executed by 30.4.1994. Apprehending alienation in violation of agreement, the respondents filed a suit for injunction restraining the appellant from alienation of the suit property. On 22.3.1993, CACP No.2 of 2008 interim injunction was granted till 26.3.1993. Thereafter, the injunction was extended upto 30.4.1993 and the matter was adjourned. Thereafter, various adjournments were granted but in adjournment orders, specific mention of continuing the injunction was not made. On 17.8.1993, the case was further adjourned and stay order was specifically extended. 3. On 26.10.1993, the appellant made following statement:- “Statement of Amar Singh defendant son of S. Kartar Singh aged 70 years, r/o Nabha, on S.A. The agreement dated 25.1.1993 is correct. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement referred above, I executed the same in favour of the plaintiff. I further agree that I will execute the sale deed in their favour as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. I handed over the possession of the suit land /under agreement to the plaintiff. I will not dispose of the suit property to anybody else except the plaintiffs.” On the basis of above statement, the respondents withdrew the suit. 4. Later, the respondents came to know that the suit land was sold by the appellant on 14.6.1993, 16.6.1993 and 5.8.1993 and inspite of the same, the appellant made a statement on 26.10.1993 that he will not alienate the property except to the respondent. He did not disclose the fact of sale and on the basis of the said statement, the suit was withdrawn. The respondents 2 CACP No.2 of 2008 filed contempt petition on 5.10.1994, stating that sale was in violation of injunction granted on 22.3.1993, which was continuing and even the appellant made a statement that he will not alienate the suit property on 26.10.1993. Thus, sale of property by the appellant was in violation of injunction granted by the Court and also the statement made by him was deliberately false and misleading. 5. The petition was contested by filing reply, stating that after 30.4.1993, there was no injunction in operation till 17.8.1993, when the injunction was again extended and sale deed had been executed between 14.6.1993 to 5.8.1993 when the injunction was not operative. 6. Learned Single Judge held that the sale deeds were executed by the appellant in violation of injunction. The appellant also made a misleading statement that he will not alienate the suit property, concealing that the suit property had been sold. The statement of the appellant led to withdrawal of the suit by the respondent. The appellant was given an opportunity to purge the contempt by making payment of earnest money, already received, to which effect decree dated 5.2.2007, Annexure P-11, has already been passed against the appellant. 7. On 4.3.2009, when this appeal was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 made a statement that if earnest money was refunded, as per decree, in favour of the respondent No.1, he will not press his claim any 3 CACP No.2 of 2008 further. The appellant was given one month further time to refund the earnest money and the appellant was also required to remain present in Court in person. Time was further extended on May 4, 2009 upto next date of hearing. Payment was has not been made. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant is not in a position to refund the earnest money and the matter may be decided on merits. His submission is that interim injunction granted on 22.3.1993 was extended only upto 30.4.1993 and thereafter, the matter was adjourned from time to time without any specific order extending injunction till 17.8.1993. In between, sale was effected. Statement made before the Court was on 26.10.1993, which was after the sale and if the said statement was misleading, the same did not amount to civil contempt, as defined under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 supports the impugned order. 11. We are unable to accept the submission made on behalf of the appellant. Injunction against alienation was granted against the appellant on 22.3.1993 which was extended upto 30.4.1993. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned for filing of reply or otherwise and there is no order vacating the injunction. On 26.10.1993, the appellant made a statement that he will not 4 CACP No.2 of 2008 alienate the suit property, on which the suit was withdrawn. The appellant, thus, committed not only violation of injunction but also breach of undertaking given to the Court, which led the respondents to withdraw the suit. The appellant clearly understood that he could not alienate the suit property. Order of the Court could not be defeated on a hyper-technicality. In Roshan Sam Joyce v. S.R. Cotton Mills Ltd. and others AIR 1990 SC 1881, it was observed: “However, as we have pointed out, respondent No. 1 gave an undertaking based on an implication or assumption which was false to knowledge and to the knowledge of respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 was equally instrumental in the giving of this undertaking. This implication or assumption was made explicit by the clarification given by the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 as set out earlier. Respondent No. 2 was equally responsible for instructing counsel to give this clarification which was false to the knowledge of both, respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Both respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 have tried to deceive the Court and the appellant. In view of this, we fail to see how it can be said that they are not guilty of contempt. Even assuming that a view were to be taken that no contempt has been technically established against respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (with which view we do not agree), we cannot allow the matter to rest there and fail to take any action and, in particular, we cannot allow respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to thwart the execution of, the decree in this manner at this stage and continue to remain in possession, of the suit premises. We find some 5 CACP No.2 of 2008 support for the course of action which we are taking from the decision of this Court in Noorali Babul Thanewala v. Sh. K. M. M. Shetty AIR 1990 SC 464 where, on facts which bear some similarity to the facts of this case, a Division Bench of this Court held that- "it is settled law that breach of an injunction or breach of an undertaking given to a court by a person in a civil proceeding on the faith of which the court sanctions a particular course of action is misconduct amounting to contempt." 12. In view of above, the view taken by the learned Single Judge cannot be held to be erroneous. 13. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 14. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE August 26, 2009 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) ashwani JUDGE 6