DEVKISHAN Vs. MADAN LAL @ MADAN MOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) This is a contempt petition filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against the appellant-non-petitioner Madan Lai @ Madan Mohan for the deliberate and wilful disobedience of the order dated 19.4.2002 passed by this Court in SB Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 2131/2001 filed In SB Civil First Appeal No. 22012001 whereby the parties were directed to maintain status-quo as regards the possession of the land in dispute pending hearing and disposal of the appeal. With the consent of counsel for the respective parties, the petition was finally heard and, therefore, it Is being disposed of finally at the admission stage itself.

(3.) Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that petitioner-respondent Shri Dev Kishan filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell and permanent injunction being Civil Suit No. 45/99 before the Court below with the averment that appellantnon- petitioner Shri Madan Lal @ Madan Mohan agreed to sell land in dispute to him and in this regard agreement to sell was executed on 13.8.1991 and possession of the land was handed over to him. It was also averred that in this regard a second agreement to sell was also executed on 27.7.1994. In that suit the appellant- non-petitioner remained absent and the suit was not contested by him. The learned trial Court by judgment dated 26.5.2001 decreed the suit and apart from other reliefs, relief regarding execution and registration of sale deed of the land in dispute was granted and permanent injunction was also granted to the effect that Interference in the possession of respondent- petitioner would not be made. The learned trial Court on the basis of pleadings and evidence available on record came to a clear finding that possession of the land In dispute was delivered by the appellant-non-petitioner to the respondent-petitioner at the time of execution of the agreement to sell. It Is to be noted that before the execution of agreement to sell dated 13.8.1991, the land in dispute along with some other land has already been mortgaged by the appellant-non-petitioner and his brother Harish Chandra Bhatnagar to the ink of Rajasthan in lieu of some loan taken by them. The learned trial Court while decreeing the suit filed by the respondent-petitioner also made some directions regarding the payment of that loan which was still unpaid at the. relevant time.