FIRM GANPAT RAM RAJKUMAR versus KALU RAM & ORS.

Citation: [1989] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 223 · Decided: 22-09-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

FIRM GANPAT RAM RAJKUMAR 
A 
v. 
KALU RAM & ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 22, 1989 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND B.C. RAY, JJ.] 
B 
Contempt of Courts Act 1971-Section 2(b), Order of this 
Court-Not complied with by the petitioner-Whether provisions of 
sections 2(b) & 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971-Attracted. 
The Respondent filed proceedings for eviction against the Peti-
.tioner firm in respect of a property situated at Narnaul under the 
Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 and obtained 
a decree of eviction. Petitioner's appeal against that decree failed in the 
High Court and the Special Leave Petition filed by it in this Court was 
;ilso dismissed on 24.8.87. While dismissing the Special Leave Petition 
this Court inter alia directed that the order of eviction shall not be 
executed for a period of six months on the Petitioner's filing usual under· 
taking in this Court within four weeks. Usual under-taking implied that 
the Petitioner was in possession of the property and that it would deliver 
vacant possession of the property by the time granted to it by the Court. 
The Petitioner did not file any undertaking in this Court. Instead threeo( 
Sanjay Kumar and Lala Ram sons of Rajkumar and Ved Prakash who 
are sons of Ganpat Ram (a partner in the petitioner's firm) filed a so.it 
in the Court of senior Sub Judge, Narnaul for permanent injunction 
restraining the decree holders from ejecting Sanjay Kumar & Lala 
Ram. In.the said suit the said plaintiffs obtained an order of temporary 
injunction dated 3.11.1988. The said suit was filed against Kalu Ram 
and Puran Chand son ofRoshan Lal and also against Ganpat Rai. 
The learned Senior Subordinate Judge in his order dated 12.2.88 
granting illjunction to the plaintiffs took the view that the plaintiffs had 
claimed a right of tenancy to the premises in question independently 
and as such the decree of eviction passed by this Court in Special Leave 
Petition No. 5597 of 1987 would not bind the plaintiffs. On this reason-
ing he issued the injunction. 
Being unable to obtain possession of the property in question, 
Kalu Ram and Anr. who ·were respondents in Special Leave Petition 
·(decree holders) have filed this Petition praying for initiation of Con-
tempt of Court proceedings against the Petitioner-firm. 
223 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
224 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 
Disposing of the Petition with some directions th!s Court, 
HELD: On the date of the order of this Court dated 21st August 
1987, in the Spedal Leave Petition, the Petitioner therein had obtained 
time on the implied assurance and representation that they were in 
possession of the premises in question and were capable of delivering 
the vacant possession to the applicants. The effect of the said order of 
this Court, is that the applicants would have vacant possession from the 
firm, Ganpat Ram Rajkumar. [227C-D] 
Having regard to the relationship between the parties and having 
regard to the undertaking promised to be filed in this Court, upon 
which time was obtained from this Court, it appears, there is a clear 
non-compliance of the order. [227E) 
· 
· 
The said order must be implemented and cannot be allowed to be 
defeated by the dubious methods adopted by the partners of the said 
firm of Ganpat Ram Raj Kumar. The whole conduct betrays a cal-
D 
culated attempt to defeat the order of this Court and to mislead the 
Court. Suns and grandsons of the partners or erstwhile partners of the 
firm cannot be allowed to frustrate the order of this Court. [227G-H; 228AJ 
The Respondents, all of them, were guilty of acts which had to the 
situation and thereby frustrate the order of this Court. Though perhaps 
E 
the respondents could not be found guilty of violating any undertaking 
as there was none, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court 
should ensure compliance with its order dated 24th August 1987 and see 
that vacant and peaceful possession is given to the applicant in the 
interest of Justice. [229D-Ej 
P 
Failure to give possession, if it amounts to contempt in a situation 
of this nature is a continuing wrong. There was no scope for application 
of section 20 of the Act. [2308 I 
The Court accordingly directed the learned Senior Sub-Judge, 
1'arnaul (Haryana) to cause, deliver up the vacant possession of the 
G 
slJop situated at Sabji Mandi Narnaul Dist!. Mohindergarh (Haryana), 
if necessary with the help of police forthwith. The learned Senior Sub

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.