CACP No. 2 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CACP No. 2 of 2011 Date of decision: 12.1.2011 Baldev Singh Fauji and others ...Appellants Versus Amin Lal and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. S.S.Sodhi, Advocate for the appellants. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 21.12.2010 passed by learned Single Judge holding the appellants guilty of contempt and sentencing the appellants No.1 to 4 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- each and sentencing appellant no.5 to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-. In default of payment of fine, appellants have been directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. They have also been directed to surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur on or before 14.1.2011. Learned Single has also directed the Executing Court to deliver possession of the suit premises to the decree holders. 2. Respondent nos.1 and 2 claiming to be landlord of the suit premises filed a suit for possession by way of eviction against Shagan Lal who is stated to be their tenant. Though the trial Court was dismissed the suit, the lower Appellate Court granted decree in CACP No. 2 of 2011 -2- favour of respondent nos.1 and 2 on 26.7.2005. The decree holders filed execution application and during pendency of execution application, they filed a suit for injunction alleging that during the pendency of execution application, Shagan Lal died on 17.8.2008 and though the house was lying vacant under a lock, pending decree holders taking steps to get the lock broken open, the appellants were trying to enter into the house. The appellants contested the suit by stating that they were in possession and Shagan Lal had no concern with the suit property. Suit filed by the decree holders against Shagan Lal was collusive to which the appellants were not a party. They were not bound by the decree passed against Shagan Lal. The said suit is still pending and no interim order has been granted. 3. Against the decree dated 26.7.2005, Shagan Lal filed Regular Second Appeal No.3301 of 2006 in this Court and after his death on 17.8.2008, his heirs respondents no.3 to 5 were substituted who contested the appeal which was finally dismissed on 5.2.2009. The said heirs gave an undertaking to hand over vacant possession of the suit premises to the decree holders. 4. Since the heirs of the Shagan Lal failed to comply with the undertaking to hand over possession, the decree holders filed a contempt petition in this Court on 26.7.2010 alleging that judgment debtors in collusion with the appellants resisted the delivery of possession. The judgment debtors willfully violated undertaking given to the Court to hand over vacant possession of the suit premises. The appellants colluded with them. The appellants had no independent title to the suit property. CACP No. 2 of 2011 -3- 5. The contempt petition was contested by the appellants on the plea that the appellants purchased the suit premises from Shagan Lal about 10-11 years back on payment of ` 90,000/-. 6. Learned Single Judge after due consideration of defence of the appellants held that they were colluding with the judgment debtors to help them to retain possession in violation of undertaking by them given to the Court to hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises. The plea of the appellants that they purchased the suit premises from Shagan Lal about 10-11 years ago was of no avail as possession admittedly was taken by them during the pendency of suit against Shagan Lal which was hit by the doctrine of lis- pendence. They did not have any independent title and their title was derived from the judgment debtors. Thus there was collusion between the appellants and the judgment debtors. The finding recorded by the learned Single Judge is as under:- “The conduct of respondent nos.4 to 8 in asserting title and possession over the suit property, when Shagan Lal was a licencee, shows that all the respondents have joined hands together so as to deprive the petitioners of the fruits of the decree. The action of the respondents is that of willful and deliberate disobedience to the decree for possession of the Civil Court.” 7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that they were not a party to the suit and in the suit filed by the decree holders for injunction against them they had denied the title of the decree CACP No. 2 of 2011 -4- holders. Thus, appellants were not liable to vacate the possession. 9. We are unable to accept the submission. Admittedly, appellants derived title from the judgment debtors during the pendency of the suit. In such a case, it was not necessary to implead them as party. Resistance of possession by them was clearly to help the judgment debtors who made a statement before this Court that they will hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises. Thus there is no error in the finding recorded by learned Single Judge. This position is not affected by proceedings by way of injunction suit. The appeal filed by the judgment debtors (CACP No.1 of 2011- Rajinder Kumar and others Vs. Amin Lal and others) has been dismissed by this Court on 7.1.2011. The impugned order does not call for any interference except for the modification that rigorous imprisonment be read as simple imprisonment. 10. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge January 12, 2010 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Pka Judge