IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CACP No.8 of 2002(O&M)
Date of decision: 27.10.2009
Sital Parkash Jain.
-----Appellant
Vs.
Jawahar Lal Jain and another.
-----Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH
Present:- None.
---
ORDER:
1. This appeal has been preferred against order of
learned Single Judge, convicting the appellant for contempt and
sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for two months
and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default, to further undergo
imprisonment for one month.
2. The appellant entered into a compromise with the
respondents on 24.3.1998. On the basis of above compromise
and further consent statements made before this Court, order
dated 21.4.1999 was passed by this Court in Civil Revision
No.1061 of 1999. Since the appellant failed to carry out the
undertaking given, contempt petition was filed, which was
disposed of by the impugned order dated 21.12.2001 with the
following finding:-
CACP No.8 of 2002 2
“The facts and circumstances of the case in
hand as discussed above, clearly indicate that it is a
clear cut case of willful disobedience of the court’s
order. It is well settled that judicial orders are to be
properly understood and complied with. Even
negligence and carelessness can amount to
disobedience particularly when attention of the person
is drawn to the court’s orders and its implication, as
has been observed in Kapildeo Prasad Sah and
other’s case (supra). It is further observed that
disobedience of court’s orders strikes at the very root
of rule of law on which our system of governance is
based. Power to punish for contempt is necessary for
the maintenance of effective legal system. It is
exercised to prevent perversion of course of justice.”
3. During pendency of this appeal, the appellant
expressed willingness to take steps to comply with the
undertaking. This was so recorded in order of this Court dated
15.3.2002. Later, an affidavit was filed by the appellant, as
noticed in order dated 20.3.2002. Vide order dated 8.8.2002, on
joint request of the parties, Tehsildar, Hoshiarpur was requested
to oversee the implementation of the undertaking and give a
report. Though report of the Tehsildar dated 12.9.2002 was
received, stand of the respondents was that the dispute still
existed. Accordingly, this appeal was admitted. On 19.11.2008,
a Local Commissioner was appointed to give effect to the terms
of the compromise. Report dated 8.1.2009 has been received.
No objection has been filed by either of the parties to the said
CACP No.8 of 2002 3
report. In the meanwhile, there was a proposal to refer the matter
for mediation, but since both the parties did not agree, the said
proposal was not carried out.
4. In view of report of the Local Commissioner, the
appellants appear to have taken some steps to carry out the
terms of the compromise.
5. None appears for either of the parties.
6. We are of the view that steps having been taken to
comply with the undertaking, it is not possible to further examine
the disputed question whether the undertaking has been fully
complied with. It will be in the interest of justice to set aside the
impugned order of conviction and sentence and relegate the
contempt petitioner to alternative remedy of executing the terms
of the undertaking in accordance with law. We order accordingly.
7. The appeal is disposed of.
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
JUDGE
October 27, 2009 ( GURDEV SINGH )
ashwani JUDGE