t A-54 % 15.9.2011 Present: Mr.A.K.Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner with Mr.J.L.Jain, petitioner in person. +CM(M) No.1077/2011 * Learned counsel for the petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that although a decree has enured in his favour and he has filed execution proceeding, yet the execution proceeding could not proceed as an appeal has been filed against the said decree and the record of the trial has been requisitioned by the appellate court. On 19.5.2011 pursuant to a CM(M) which had been filed in the High court a direction was given by the High Court to the appellate court to return the record of the executing court. On 06.9.2007 a contempt petition had also been filed by the same petitioner; his contention was that the order of the High Court dated 19.5.2011 (noted supra) in CM(M) No.609/2011 has not been complied with and accordingly contempt be initiated; this contempt petition had been dismissed on 06.9.2011 noting therein as follows: "The grievance of the petitioner is that on 08.07.2011 the execution matter of J.L. Jain vs. Mohan Singh & Anr. could not be proceeded with as the trial court record had been summoned by the Appellate Court in appeal No. 55/2011. The order dated 08.07.2011 has not been filed for the reasons best known to the petitioner; even otherwise from the list of dates, it is clear that this record had been Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified t requisitioned in appeal No. 55/2011 in the execution matter of J.L. Jain vs. Mohan Singh & Anr., Whereas the directions of this court vide order dated 19.05.2011 had been passed in the execution matter of J.L. Jain vs. Ram Prakash & Anr." While dismissing the aforenpted contempt cost of Rs.10,000/- had been imposed. The present petition has nowhere mentioned that this contempt petition has been dismissed on 06.9.2011 and the same grievance which has been pressed in the present petition had also been taken in the earlier contempt petition. The petitioner is making every effort to play with the legal process by filing one petition or the other and without even disclosing in the present petition the factum of the earlier petition i.e. CCP No.685/2011 which had been filed by him and dismissed on 06.9.2011; again his grievance is that the order dated 19.5.2011 is flouted with. This petition is clearly an abuse of the process of the court; it is dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee. Copy of this order be sent to trial court who shall ensure the compliancelof the order. INDERMEET KAUR, J. SEPTEMBER 15, 2011 nandan dJr i ) $-24 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) 1077/2011 JL JAIN Petitioner Through: Petitioner-in-person. versus VIRESH ARORA & ORS Respondents Through; Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR ORDER % 21.11.2011 CM Nos. 20921-20923/2011 in CM(M) 1077/2011 CM No. 20921/2011 is an application under sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') seeking certain corrections in the order passed by this court on 15.09.2011; alongwith this application an application for stay as also an application for exemption has been filed. Record shows that the order dated 15.09.2011 was the subject matter of the earlier application i.e. CM No. 19928/2011 and the averments made in the said application i.e. CM No. 19928/2011 are similar to the averments made in the present application; only different provisions of law have been given; the present application has been filed under Sections 151 and 152 of the Code whereas the earlier application was simplicitor an application under Section 151 of the Code. The petitioner in one way or the other is trying to overreach i the orders passed by this court by filing these types of frivolous applications; petitioner is guilty of abuse of the process of the court. All these applications are dismissed with consolidated cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee: Trial Court shall ensure compliance. INDERMEET KAUR, J NOVEMBER 21, 2011 rb