- (1.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The contempt petition is wholly misconceived. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Contempt Petitions (C) Nos. 6 and 36 of 2006 in CA No. 5807 of 2005
(2.) While deciding Civil Appeal No. 5807 of 2005 (Col. Anil Kak v. Municipal Corpn., Indore, 2005 12 SCC 734), a direction was issued to the appellant in para 7 of the judgment to clear all the rent in arrears (if any), either by tendering the same to Respondent 3 or depositing the same in the trial court. This contempt petition has been filed on the ground that the said direction issued by this Court on 19-9-2005 has not been obeyed by the appellant, namely, Col. Anil Kak. Learned counsel for the petitioner in the present contempt petition which has been filed by Sushila Raje Holkar (Respondent 3 in the appeal) has submitted that as the direction regarding payment of rent has not been complied with by the appellant Anil Kak, he is liable to be punished for having committed contempt of court. Learned counsel has further submitted that though the suit for arrears of rent and eviction was filed in the year 2001 and the defence of the tenant was also struck off in the same year but the suit has not been decided so far due to delaying tactics adopted by the defendant.
(3.) In the facts and circumstances of the case, we consider it proper that the suit itself should be decided at an early date. The trial court hearing OS No. 31 of 2005-A is accordingly directed to hear and decide the said suit as expeditiously as possible preferably within three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before it.;