Dismissed

Sh. Radheyshyam Sharma v. Sh. Ghanshyam Sharma & Ors.

Delhi HC13 Aug 2026CONT.CAS(C)/837/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a Contempt Petition filed by Mr. Radhey Shyam Sharma for alleged willful disobedience of a direction to restore possession. The Court held the petition was not maintainable as the earlier order specifically directed restoration to Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, not the petitioner. The petition was disposed of accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; section 2A proceedings quashed; status quo ante restored to Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma in possession of second and third floors within eight weeks.

Sh. Radheyshyam Sharma Vs Sh. Ghanshyam Sharma… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~20

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

CNR No. DLHC013708242018

¶4

CONT.CAS(C) 837/2018, CM APPL. 16953/2019 (For implementation/ Execution of order dt. 12.04.2018), CM APPL. 51815/2023 (Dir.) & CM APPL. 51816/2023 (Ex.)

¶5

SH. RADHEYSHYAM SHARMA .....Petitioner Through: Appearance not given

¶6

versus

¶7

SH. GHANSHYAM SHARMA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rohan Taneja, Mr. Lalit Kumar and Mr. Raghav Kalra, Advocates for R-1 & 3

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

¶10

O R D E R % 13.08.2026

¶11

The present Contempt Petition seeks initiation of contempt proceedings as against the Respondents/ alleged contemnors for willful disobedience of the directions passed by this Court vide Order dated 12.04.2018, whereby the Court had directed to restore the possession of second and third floor of the suit property the same be handed back to Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma. The relevant portion of the said Order reads as under:

¶12

“……However, having considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the view that if the appellants were interpreting the injunction order in terms of the above-cited judgment, then it would have been prudent for them to err on the site of caution and to have sought clarification of the injunction order. Since, the breach is sought to be explained as being within the confines of the injunction, by their understanding of the law, albeit erroneous, and not a deliberate breach, the breach of the injunction order will not be considered as wilful.

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/08/2026 at 11:13:29

¶15

Accordingly, section 2A proceedings ought to be and is quashed. However, since there is change in status quo by the appellants and respondent no.2, they are directed to restore the status quo i.e. possession of the second and third floor of the property shall be restored back to Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma.

¶16

The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the first floor is not in dispute i.e. it was all along in the possession of Mr. Ghanshyam Sharma, the appellant no. 1. In the circumstances, status quo ante shall be restored as follows: i.e. possession of second and third floor of the suit property shall be handed back to Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma—respondent no. 1herein within eight weeks from today. The petition is disposed off in the above terms.”

¶17

This Court put a specific query to the learned counsel for the Petitioner as to how the present Contempt Petition is maintainable by the Petitioner, namely, Mr. Radhey Shyam Sharma, especially since the directions passed by this Court are to the effect that the possession of the second and third floor will be restored and handed back to Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma.

¶18

Learned counsel for the Petitioner in response to the said query replied that the present petition is maintainable since he is the ultimate beneficiary of the subject premises. 4. This Court further put query to the learned counsel for the parties as to whether Mr. Radhey Shyam Sharma was a party to the appeal being FAO No.567/2016 to which the response was in the affirmative.

¶19

In view of the aforesaid, and having regard to the fact that the direction issued by the Court was confined to restoration of possession to Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, this Court is of the opinion that the present Contempt Petition, at the instance of Mr. Radhey Shyam Sharma, cannot be maintained. The directions of the Court are clear and unequivocal with regard to restoration of possession in favour of Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, who is also a Petitioner in the Connected

¶20

This is a digitally signed order.

¶21

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/08/2026 at 11:13:29

¶22

Petition, being CONT.CAS(C) 83/2019. Furthermore, admittedly the Petitioner herein was a party in the proceedings in which the order came to be passed and of which disobedience is alleged. The said order, despite the presence of the Petitioner herein categorically directs the possession to be handed over to Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma and not to the Petitioner herein. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the present Contempt Petition, as instituted by Mr. Radhey Shyam Sharma, is not maintainable.

¶23

Accordingly, the present Petition along with pending Application(s), if any, is dismissed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶24

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. AUGUST 13, 2026/rk/va

¶25

This is a digitally signed order.

¶26

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/08/2026 at 11:13:29

Sh. Radheyshyam Sharma v. Sh. Ghanshyam Sharma & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sh. Radheyshyam Sharma v. Sh. Ghanshyam Sharma & Ors.

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

Satish Kumar Singh Vs Govind Mohan and Anr.

Prakash Industries Limited Vs Manmohan Bansal & Ors.

Jai Durge College of Education Vs Ms. Sukhgeet Kaur, Iofs, Member Secretary, Ncte and Anr.

Virender Chawla & Anr. Vs Naresh and Ors.

Abhishek Gupta Vs Shashi Kumar Shukla & Anr.

Asha Saini Vs Sh Ashwani Kumar Commissioner MCD and Others

Shailendra Mohan Upadhyaya Vs Delhi Police Public School & Anr.

Ex Ct/Gd Ajit Singh Vs Shri Gyanendra Pratap Singh Ors.