Dismissed

Shafeena Begum v. Rajender Singh Sisodia

Delhi HC10 Sept 2024CONT.CAS(C)/1441/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Decree-holder sought contempt against judgment debtor for unpaid misuse charges/mesne profits despite surrendering possession after a decree affirmed up to the Supreme Court. The Court held the grievance was executable, not contemptuous, and permitted withdrawal with liberty to approach the Executing Court.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file execution proceedings for mesne profits/misuse charges.

Shafeena Begum Vs Rajender Singh Sisodia — Execution and Attachment | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~64

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of decision: 10^th September, 2024

¶4

- CONT.CAS(C) 1441/2024

¶5

SHAFEENA BEGUM

¶6

.....Petitioner

¶7

Through: Mr. A.K. Mishra, Mr. Sudhanshu Dwivedi, Mr. Arpit Mishra and Mr. Anik Srivastava, Advs. alongwith petitioner in person

¶8

versus

¶9

RAJENDER SINGH SISODIA .....Respondent Through: None.

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA

¶11

DHARMESH SHARMA, J. (ORAL)

¶12

CM APPL. 52849/2024 – EXMP.

¶13

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶14

The application stands disposed of.

¶15

CONT.CAS(C) 1441/2024

¶16

The petitioner is seeking initiation of contempt proceedings for the willful disobedience on the part of the respondent/judgment debtor for not complying with the judgment dated 11.12.2014 passed by the learned Trial Court in Suit No. 18/2005, titled as Shafeena Begum vs. Rajender Singh Sisodia & Ors. filed under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, 1963, and as was affirmed by this Court in CM(M) 176/2015 vide judgment dated 24.04.2024.

¶17

Signature Not Verified

¶18

CONT.CAS(C) 1441/2024 Page 1 of 2

¶19

Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:11.09.2024 17:48:14

¶20

No one is present for the respondent despite sending advance notice.

¶21

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is but apparent that the judgment dated 11.12.2014 passed by the learned Trial Court was upheld by this Court on filing of the Civil Revision No. 176/2015 vide order dated 24.04.2024. In fact, the SLP filed by the respondent/judgment debtor has since been dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 09.07.2024.

¶22

The grievance of the petitioner is that although possession of the premises has been taken over by her from the respondent/judgment debtor, the respondent/judgment debtor has not made payment of misuse charges/mesne profits @ Rs.7,500/- per month w.e.f. 11.12.2014.

¶23

Without any further ado, the present contempt petition is not maintainable. The impugned decree as affirmed in the Civil Revision proceedings before this Court, is clearly an executive order and the appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to file execution proceedings.

¶24

At this stage, as requested by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the present contempt petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner/decree-holder to approach the learned Trial Court/Executing Court for redressal of her grievances.

¶25

The contempt petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶26

DHARMESH SHARMA, J.

¶27

SEPTEMBER 10, 2024 sa

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

CONT.CAS(C) 1441/2024 Page 2 of 2

¶30

Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:11.09.2024 17:48:14

Shafeena Begum v. Rajender Singh Sisodia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shafeena Begum v. Rajender Singh Sisodia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chander Kanta Vs Gyanesh Bharti Comissioner MCD and Others

Morgan Ventures Limited Vs Nepc India Limited and Others & Ors.

Ziyauddin Manglore Vs Santosh Hegde

Morgan Ventures Limited Vs Nepc India Limited and Other & Ors.

M/S Ag Traders Vs Ms. Chanchal Yadav Pr. Commissioner of Department of Trade and Taxes

M/S Shri Vaishnavi Iternational Vs Ms. Chanchal Yadav

Brig Anurag Khanna Vs Union of India & Ors.

Value Infracon India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ram Girish, Income Tax Officer & Anr.

Air Force Naval Housing Board Vs Central Bank of India Branch Air Force Station & Ors.

Samar Amusement and Education Vs Delhi Development Authority and Ors.

Chander Kanta Vs Gyanesh Bharti Comissioner MCD and Others

Chaman Singh and Ors. Vs DDA

M/S Kurukshetra Expressway Private Limited & Anr. Vs Bank of Baroda & Ors.

Prabhavati Devi Vs Engineers India Ltd. & Anr.