Civil Miscellaneous Appeal allowed respondent appeal against a trial court order sending him to civil prison for disobedience of an interim injunction denying him booking rights post-tenure.
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed with costs confirming the trial court order.
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.
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL.No.587 of 2022
JUDGMENT:
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the Order of the trial Court in I.A.No.942 of 2022 in I.A.No.113 of 2022 in O.S.No.21 of 2022.
2
without any independent enquiry and the appellant was set exparte when his Counsel could not appear due to ill health and consequential death of his mother and without deciding the injunction petition in I.A.No.113 of 2022 in O.S.No.21 of 2022 in which Counter affidavit was already filed on 11.02.2022 and also without deciding the Vacate Petition in I.A.No.159 of 2022 in I.A.No.113 of 2022 in O.S.No.21 of 2022 filed on the same day. The petition under Order XXXIX rule 2-A C.P.C is analogous to the contempt proceedings, as such the procedure required to be followed and adhere to both oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff/petitioner. The trial Court neither conducted enquiry nor permitted him to leading evidence before sending him to the civil prison. Though the trial Court relied upon Exs.P1 to P29, they were not marked, as the mandate of the statute is that injunction application should be disposed of within 30 days when exparte ad-interim injunction was granted by the Court.
3
schedule property and making payments to the respondent herein as per the terms of the agreement between the parties. The trial Court without assigning any reasons resorted to exercise its drastic power conferred under Order XXXIX rule 2-A. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the Order of the trial Court in I.A.No.942 of 2022 in I.A.No.113 of 2022 in O.S.No.21 of 2022.
4
conducting functions for third parties invited bids for appointing a new Hirer and the defendant was the successful bidder as a Hirer under a Hire Agreement dated 24.06.2011 for a period of 2 years and agreed to pay Rs.5,00,000/- per month as Hire charges and upon his request, it was extended till 2014 and it came to an end on 23.06.2014. When the defendant made several requests, the Managing Committee permitted him to act as a ‘Preferred Supplier’ till August 2015. The defendant in a letter dated 01.08.2015, requested for change in the booking conditions, but it was not accepted by the Managing Committee. Hence, he filed O.S.No.433 of 2015 on 11.08.2015 and sought for injunction by suppressing the real facts and also obtained ad-interim status-quo in his favour. But, it was vacated in a detailed Order dated 16.11.2015.
5
confirming the Order of the trial Court in which it was stated that the defendant is not a tenant nor he is in possession of the suit schedule property. Later defendant came up for compromise and sought for two years time to conduct his business in the suit schedule property. The said proposal was placed before the Extraordinary General Body Meeting, but it was rejected. Again the defendant filed O.S.No.162 of 2017 on 21.09.2017 for enforcing the Memo of Compromise. Later plaintiff filed suit for rejection of plaint and then defendant withdrawn the suit. Accordingly, it was dismissed as withdrawn on 01.08.2019. When two suits were pending, he also filed Tr.OP.No.2696 of 2017 and the same was dismissed on 31.08.2018. The plaintiff also filed C.C.No.1527 of 2018 against the defendant, but it was ended in acquittal, as such defendant filed O.S.No.104 of 2019, claiming damages of Rs.62,00,000/-.
6
15.01.2020. In the said agreement Clauses 4, 5 and 7 are reads
as follows:
iv) At the end of the tenure on 31st December 2021. The defendant shall remove himself, his representatives and items brought by him from the Plaintiff Club and not claim any rights whatsoever over the Mandapam and any part of the plaintiff’s premises.
v) Defendant shall not book/take advance bookings for functions any bookings for the plaintiff’s Club premises post the tenure, i.e, 31st December 2021 and any such bookings shall be null & void, the plaintiff having absolute right to disallow/cancel such booking.
vii) agreed and acknowledged that in event of a delay by him to remove himself and his belongings from the Mandapam and designated area on or before 7th January 2022, he shall pay to the Plaintiff a sum of Rs.75,000/- plus GST per day as penal charges for wrongful usage and the Plaintiff shall be entitled to adjust amounts due against the interest free security deposit.
7
injunction and thus requested the Court to grant ad-interim injunction against the defendant.
8
take any advance bookings for functions post tenure i.e, 31.12.2021. Defendant/respondent willfully disobeyed the Orders of the trial Court. He further stated that interim stay granted till 21.02.2022 was extended from time and again. As he committed breach, plaintiff/petitioner filed an application to send him to the civil prison. The trial Court considering the arguments of both sides partly allowed the same and directed to the send the defendant/respondent to the civil prison for a period of two months on payment of process. The defendant/respondent knowing pretty well that the compromise was entered only till 31.12.2021, made bookings for the marriages and functions even after the said date and now claiming that it will cause irreparable loss to him if he is not allowed to proceed with the said functions. When there was a specific clause in the terms of compromise about at the end of the tenure i.e, on 31.12.2021, it is for him to vacate the premises and handover the possession, but neither he vacated nor paid the penal charges for wrongful usage as mentioned in the compromise memo and again came to the Court by suppressing all the material facts and requested the Court to set aside the Order of the trial Court.
9
In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is devoid of merits and is dismissed with costs confirming the Order of the trial Court in I.A.No.942 of 2022 in I.A.No.113 of 2022 in O.S.No.21 of 2022 dated 22.11.2022.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
DATED: 10.02.2023 tri
10
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 587 of 2022
DATED: 10.02.2023
TRI
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in sending the respondent to civil contempt without independent inquiry?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Zoroastrian Club
Keki P. Irani
Smt. Justice P.Sree Sudha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
