Petitioner filed a contempt petition for one-month delay in vacating premises despite a consent order. Court disposed of the matter noting damages were paid, discharging notices.
Contempt petition disposed of; notices discharged.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
S.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.99/2014
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR
O R D E R IN S.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.99/2014 IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.152/2011 (Smt. Nirmala Devi Jain Vs. Manish Kumar & Anr.)
Date of Order : 09.09.2014
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA
Mr. Uttam Chand Jain, husband of the petitioner. Mr. Manish Kumar, respondent No.1 in person. BY THE COURT
Vide order dated 09.07.2012 a consent order was recorded by this Court whereunder the appellants in the said appeal were to vacate the tenanted premises on or before 31.12.2013. Other conditions based on consent of the parties / their respective counsel were also recorded under the order dated 09.07.2012.
This contempt petition has now been filed by the decree-holder Nirmala Devi stating that in spite of the consent order dated 09.07.2012, the tenanted premises were not vacated on 31.12.2013, but only on 31.01.2014. This act of delayed vacation of the tenanted premises constitutes contempt of court by the tenant, it is submitted. This court had also granted liberty to pursue contempt proceeding in the event the conditions of the order dated 09.07.2012 were not complied with or breached by the judgment debtor, the appellants before the court in SB Civil Second Appeal No.152/2011.
S.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.99/2014
(2)
Heard. Considered.
It is an admitted fact that as against the consent order
dated 09.07.2012 passed by this Court whereby the tenanted premises were to be vacated on or before 31.12.2013, the tenanted premises were vacated on 31.01.2014—after a delay of one month. It is also an admitted fact that this Court had inter alia allowed the petitioner now before this Court to initiate contempt proceeding in the event of breach of conditions of the consent order dated 09.07.2012 and undertaking/s recorded at the instance of the parties before the Court.
The merits of the contempt petition need not be gone into taking into consideration the fact that the tenanted premises have been vacated albeit one month after the period set out by the Court under its consent order dated 09.07.2012, Mr. Manish Kumar, respondent No.1, offered to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the petitioner as damages / mesne profits for delayed vacation of the tenanted premises by a period of one month. The said payment has been made to the husband of the petitioner in Court today itself.
The contempt petition stands accordingly disposed of. Notices discharged.
(ALOK SHARMA), J
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.- Manoj Solanki, P.A.
MS/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether dismissal of an admitted delay in vacation of premises, accompanied by payment of damages, warrants separate consideration of merits.
Whether consent to initiate contempt proceedings was breached given the late performance.
Smt. Nirmala Devi Jain
Manish Kumar
Allok Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
