CACP No. 1 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CACP No. 1 of 2011 Date of decision: 7.1.2011 Rajinder Kumar 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. G.S.Sandhu, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Punit Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Saurabh Arora, Advocate for the Caveator- Respondents No.1 and 2. **** 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 appellants No.1 and 3 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- each and sentencing appellant no.2 to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- taking a liberal view on account of her age. Default sentence in lieu of fine was also provided. 2. The appellants are heirs of Shagan Lal, who was a tenant in the suit premises. The contempt petitioners, respondent Nos.1 and 2, are the landlord who filed a suit for possession by way of eviction. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court but decreed by the lower Appellate Court which decree was affirmed by this Court on 5.2.2009 in Regular Second Appeal No.3301 of 2006. CACP No. 1 of 2011 -2- 3. During the pendency of appeal in this Court, Shagan Lal died and the appellants got themselves substituted as legal representatives. Contention raised on behalf of the appellants was that the predecessor of appellants was not tenant but in unauthorised occupation of the premises and thus acquired ownership. This contention was rejected. Finally a statement was made on behalf of the appellants that they will hand over vacant possession of the premises to the decree holders within two months. The said part of the order is as under:- “In view of the fact and circumstances of this case, no mesne profit has been assessed for use and occupation, the appellant through learned counsel undertakes to hand over the vacant possession of the premises in dispute to the plaintiff/respondents within two months from today, as after the decree his possession is unauthorised. With modification regarding mesne profit, the decree for possession stands confirmed.” 4. Thereafter in execution proceedings, a statement was made on 23.3.2009 on behalf of the appellants that the decree holders could take possession. However, decree holders could not take possession. As per report of Bailiff dated 16.9.2009, it was found that respondent nos.3 to 7 had locked the door and obstructed taking of possession. The decree holders had also filed a suit for injunction, during the pendency of Regular Second Appeal in this Court, stating that during the pendency of the execution proceedings to execute the decree granted by the lower Appellate Court, CACP No. 1 of 2011 -3- respondent nos.3,4 and 7 were trying to enter the house. Interim injunction was not granted but the suit remained pending. Finally, the decree holders filed contempt petition in this Court on 26.7.2010, inter-alia, stating that appellants colluded with respondent nos.3 to 7 to avoid consequences of undertaking given to this Court on 5.2.2009 and thereby committed breach of undertaking given to this Court and was, thus, liable to be punished for contempt. The appellants contested the contempt petition and took the stand that the property in question had already been vacated by them and they were not in collusion with respondents nos.3 to 7. Respondents nos.3 to 7 were party to the suit for injunction. 5. Learned Single Judge rejected the stand of the appellants, inter-alia, holding as under:- “Therefore, the collusion of respondents No.1 to 3 with respondents No. 4 to 8 is beyond dispute. Such collusion is for the purpose of obstructing the due execution of the decree for possession. Though respondent Nos. 4 to 8 are not party to the decree, but the said respondents have no independent ownership, interest or title over the suit property.” ....... “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 together so as to deprive the petitioners of the fruits of the decree.” 6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants. CACP No. 1 of 2011 -4- 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that they had nothing to do with the premises in question and were never in possession and, thus, they had no interest in colluding with respondents No.3 to 7 to obstruct the execution of the decree. 8. We are unable to accept the submission. The appellants got themselves substituted as legal heirs of Shagan Lal to defend the decree for possession passed against their predecessor. They also argued for setting aside of the decree for possession which plea was turned down. Thereafter they gave an undertaking to the Court to hand over vacant possession of the premises. The stand now taken by them that they were not in possession could not be accepted. If they were not in possession they could not have given an undertaking to hand over vacant possession. If respondents No.4 to 8 took over possession actual or constructive, it could only be at the instance of the appellants who had the control over the premises, on their own showing. Thus, we do no find any merit in this appeal. We also do not find any ground to interfere on the quantum of sentence awarded by the learned Single Judge. The order of sentence is, however, modified to read as simple imprisonment instead of rigorous imprisonment. 9. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge January 07, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Pka Judge