In COCP-1663-2020-PUNJ HC- P&H HC dismisses contempt petition as no willful disobedience on part of Judicial Officer was made out
Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan [29-03-2023]

Read Order: SAROJ KANTA V. JAI PARKESH AND OTHERS

Mansimran Kaur

Chandigarh, April 19, 2023: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition preferred by the petitioner alleging  the violation of the order granting stay of execution of the impugned decree after considering the fact that no willful disobedience on the part of the Judicial Officer was made out.

A Single- Judge bench of Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan dismissed the present petition by observing that conduct of the petitioner in the case at hand, who was appellant in the RSA, was also self-speaking as after passing of the order, neither she made any request before the Benches where the appeal remain pending for a period of about 6 years nor till date she had  filed any application for extension of stay. 

Brief facts of the case were such  that a civil suit was filed by  the first respondent /Jai Parkesh-plaintiff on April 20, 2007 praying for decree of possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell for a total consideration of Rs.3,85,000/-. This suit was filed by respondent-plaintiff Jai Parkesh against Chatter Singh @ Kaptan/ the first defendant and petitioner Saroj Kanta/ the second defendant. 

 The first   Defendant in his written statement denied the execution of agreement to sell. The second defendant   accordingly set up a plea that she was a bona fide purchaser. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated March 23, 2010  partly decreed the suit regarding return of Rs.1,00,000/- earnest money along with interest @ 12% per annum till its realisation.

 In appeal filed by respondent Jai Parkesh, the same was accepted and the first defendant Chatter Singh @ Kaptan was directed to execute the sale deed of the disputed property within two months of the date of judgment, failing which the plaintiff-appellant-Jai Parkesh was held entitled to get the sale deed executed through trial Court.

The petitioner/defendant filed the present RSA of 2013, which was listed on May 16, 2013  and notice of motion was issued only to Jai Parkesh, the trial Court record was requisitioned  On March 10, 2014  the aforesaid order granting stay of execution of the impugned decree was passed and the case was adjourned .  On August 29, 2014  on request of the counsel for the appellant, it was adjourned to February 23, 2015  however, there was no extension of stay.

Thereafter, it appears that the case was not listed due to COVID-19 situation and now it was listed for May 2, 2023.  A perusal of all the orders, subsequent to order dated March 10, 2014 would show that till January 17, 2020  for a period of 6 years, when the case was actually listed before different Benches, the case was simply adjourned on the request of either of the parties and neither there was any prayer made by the petitioner-appellant for extension of stay nor it was ever extended.

 The present contempt petition was filed in 2020 with the allegation that in violation of the interim order, the first  respondent,  Jai Parkesh executed a sale deed in favour of the second respondent  Chatter Singh @ Kaptan on August 15, 2020. 

After hearing the submissions from both the sides and after going through the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the affidavit of the Judicial Officer, it was  apparent that after the order dated March 10, 2014  was passed by this Court in RSA staying execution of the impugned decree in the meantime, while adjourning the case to August 29, 2014 , at no point of time, the stay order was extended and the case remain listed before different Benches for more than 5 years.

 It was also on the record that JD - Chatter Singh was proceeded ex parte in executing proceedings. A perusal of the zimni orders in the RSA as well as of the zimni orders passed by the executing Court, awaiting the further orders to be passed in the RSA, would show that a considerable long period was passed when in the execution proceedings, a Local Commissioner was appointed to execute the sale deed in order to finally decide the execution petition. Even subsequent to the execution of the sale deed in the year 2013, no further application was moved before the Court in RSA for extension of the stay order till date, the Court noted. 

 It was worth noticing that even the conduct of the petitioner, who was  appellant in the RSA, was also self-speaking as after passing of the order,  neither she made any request before the Benches where the appeal remain pending for a period of about 6 years nor till date she has filed any application for extension of stay, the Court noted

No willful disobedience on the part of the Judicial Officer was  made out, who due to non-cooperation by the petitioner in the execution proceedings proceeded further, the Court observed. Accordingly, the contempt petition was dismissed.