In CONT.CAS(C) 841/2018-DEL HC- Merely because order or decree is executable, it would not take away jurisdiction of Court to deal with matter under Contempt of Courts Act: Delhi HC Justice Subramonium Prasad [02-06-2022]

Read Order: JAI BHAGWAN SHARMA Vs. MUNNI DEVI On 02 June, 2022 – Legitquest

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, June 7, 2022: In a property matter, the Delhi High Court has held that the respondent-encroacher had committed contempt of Court and reiterated that in view of the purpose of the Contempt of Courts Act, it would not be in consonance with the statute to draw any distinction between the wilful violation of the terms of a consent decree and violation of a decree that has been passed on adjudication.

Referring to the provisions of the CPC and the Contempt of Courts Act, the Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad said, “The Apex Court has repeatedly held that all decrees and orders are executable under the CPC, including consent decrees and orders, but merely because an order or decree is executable, it would not take away the jurisdiction of the Court to deal with the matter under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.”

This case revolved around a property which was stated to be in the ownership of the petitioner. The Petitioner herein permitted the husband of the Respondent herein to occupy an area of 50 Sq. Yards in the premises in question at a license fee. When the husband of the Respondent refused to vacate the premises in question, the Petitioner filed a Suit before the Additional District Judge. The Trial Court, decreed the Suit in favour of the Petitioner and directed the Respondent to handover the peaceful and vacant possession of 50 Sq. Yards of the land in the rear portion of the premises in question to the Petitioner within two months. The  instant contempt petition had been filed as the Respondent had not vacated the premises in question.

The Bench held that Respondent had only come up with the false claim that she was in possession of land measuring 100 Sq.Yds. in the premises in question without adducing any evidence to this effect in any of the suits. Despite categorical directions rendered by the Trial Court and this Court, the Respondent had remained obstinate in her stance that the premises in question was possessed by her by way of adverse possession, added the Court.

According to the Bench, this extent of disobedience of law was nothing less than contempt of Court, thereby, bringing down the majesty of law and making a mockery of the temple of justice. Thus, observing that the respondent was  liable to be evicted from the premises in question, the Bench listed the matter on July 5, 2022 for Order on sentencing.