Judgment:
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CONT.CAS(C) 670/2013 SMT ISHRAT BEGUM AND ANR ..... Petitioners Through Mr. S. D. Ansari and Mr. I. Ahmed, Advocates. versus SHRI NADEEM HUSSAIN AND ANR ..... Respondents Through Mr. S. A. Khan, Advocate for R1. Mr. Jayendra, Advocate for R2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.
(Oral) Cont.Cas(C) No.670/2013 1. The principal grievance of the petitioners in seeking initiation of contempt proceedings is with regard to the alleged violation of the directions issued by this Court 18.04.2013 in C.M.(Main) No.1174/2011, which are as follows; “11.
2. The respondent shall not interfere in the peaceful enjoyment of the use and occupation of the suit property by the petitioners during the pendency of the suit.”
The aforesaid directions came to be issued by this Court after a factual analysis of the respective claims, which concluded with the finding that;
“8. The petitioners, thus continued to retain their possession in the suit property.”
It was after examination of the factual background that the aforesaid directions to respondent No.1 not to interfere with the, “peaceful enjoyment of the use and occupation of the suit property by the petitioners during the pendency of the suit”, came to be passed.
3. The principal defence being urged is that, in fact, sometime antecedent to the orders passed on 18.04.2013, an altercation had taken place between the parties, whereafter both the parties including the respondent No.1 have placed their locks, “on the gate of the staircase leading to the second floor...”
, and that, therefore, the respondent No.1 is not in contempt. In other words, the respondent No.1 seeks to plead facts antecedent to the orders of this Court passed on 18.04.2013, to demonstrate that there has been no violation of this Court’s orders; and, as a matter of fact, the position as prevailing on 18.04.2013 at the suit premises is merely continuing and nothing more. The respondent No.1 appears to be under the impression that so long he has not done any overt act so as to change any prevailing position as on 18.04.2013, he need have no worry on this score.
4. Once there is a positive, albeit interim, finding by the Court with regard to the nature of possession, as well as use and occupation by the petitioners, that finding has to be respected by all parties concerned including the respondent No.1, till such time as the same is varied, stayed or reversed by any appropriate court. Admittedly, the aforesaid order and finding of this Court dated 18.04.2013 has not been varied, and continues to be in force. Under the circumstances, the respondent No.1 was obliged to take steps, and to do all acts necessary to ensure that the orders passed by this Court on 18.04.2013, and the findings recorded therein, are given full force and effect, if necessary, by removing any lock that he may have placed on the access to the suit premises before the aforesaid orders dated 18.04.2013 came to passed. He has chosen not to do so, perhaps on some mistaken advice.
5. Counsel for the respondent No.1 has also relied on some observations of the learned trial court made in its order dated 11.10.2013 in a petition under Order 39 Rule 2A read with Section 151 of the CPC, moved by the petitioner before that court, inter alia, relying on the aforesaid interim directions passed by this Court on 18.04.2013. In that, the trial court has expressed an opinion that since no separate directions were either sought by the petitioners / applicants for removal of any lock that may have been placed by the respondent No.1 nor was any such direction issued on 18.04.2013; therefore, respondent No.1 cannot be said to be in contempt. The trial court appears to be of the view that the respondent No.1 would be liable for contempt only if it is factually demonstrated that he has placed the lock after passing of the order on 18.04.2013, and not otherwise.
6. In my opinion, the reasoning of the trial court is not sound and does not commend itself. The finding by the High Court on 18.04.2013 is one of fact. It constitutes an interim order whereby the High Court has found that the petitioners are in possession of the suit property, and further that during the pendency of the suit, the respondent No.1 shall not interfere in the peaceful, “enjoyment of the use and occupation of the suit property....”
. In other words, henceforth, i.e. after 18.04.2013, respondent No.1 was also obliged to take all necessary action to remove any interference in the peaceful enjoyment, use and occupation of the suit property by the petitioners. Even if it is assumed for a moment that the lock in question was placed by the respondent No.1 before 18.04.2013, it is undeniable that the presence of that lock interferes in the peaceful enjoyment, use and occupation of the suit property by the petitioners at every point of time even from 18.04.2013 onwards; much in the same way as if he himself or his agent, was standing in the doorway barring the petitioners’ access; and, to that extent, respondent No.1 was obliged to remove that lock, as indeed he would be obliged to remove himself from the doorway. This is the only way in which the continuing and present interference in the, “enjoyment, use and occupation”, of the suit property by the petitioners, can be ended; and the direction that there shall be no interference by the respondent No.1 in the use and occupation of the suit property by the petitioners can be made effective. To my mind, it is not open to the respondent No.1 to assume that the order of 18.04.2013 only directs the respondent No.1 not to cause any additional interference in future with the peaceful possession, use and occupation of the suit property, and that any continuing interference because of any action done in the past is not subject to any such directions. Adopting such an approach by respondent No.1, which tends to nullify the orders of the 18.04.2013 entirely, cannot be countenanced. Furthermore, if the facts as asserted by the respondent No.1 are to be believed, it is obvious that on 18.04.2013, when the aforesaid orders in question were being passed by this Court, the respondent No.1 was fully conscious of all the relevant facts and had stood silently, perhaps under the impression that he will be able to use this technicality to continue to deny the petitioners the use and occupation of the property in question, despite the Court having found in favour of the petitioner in this regard.
7. At this stage, counsel for the respondent No.1, who also admittedly, appeared for the same respondent on 18.04.2013 before this Court, states, on instruction from Sh. Waseem Raja, the elder brother of respondent No.1, that with a view to avoiding any further complications with regard to these contempt proceedings, the respondent No.1 shall remove his lock from the premises in question within another four (4) days, failing which it shall be open to the petitioners to break the said lock, of course, without prejudice to all rights and contentions of the respondent No.1 with regard to any claims that he may have to the said property, which are stated to be sub judice in various courts.
8. Looking to the overall circumstances, this statement of counsel for the respondent No.1 is accepted by this Court, and the respondent No.1 shall remain bound by the same.
9. Counsel for the petitioners states that under the circumstances, he does not wish to press these proceedings any further; and that as regards the rights, title and all other claims of his clients with regard to the property in question, the petitioners shall abide by any finding ultimately brought by any civil court of appropriate jurisdiction in the matter.
10. Consequently, the instant proceedings are closed with the aforesaid directions. Needless to say that no opinion is being expressed by this Court on the merits of the matter one way or the other; and it is open to the parties to establish their respective claims before an appropriate forum in accordance with law.
11. The petition stands disposed off.
12. A copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of the Court Master to counsel for the parties. SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA (Judge) APRIL21 2014 dr