Decided on December 24,1965

R N SARKAR Respondents


- (1.)THIS is an application for action against Bani Prasad Agarwal, respondent, for contempt of Court in the following circumstances;
(2.)THE petitioner is a registered society called the Harijan Co-operative Housing Society, Allahabad which alleges to be running a Montessori school called 'pt. Govind Ballabh Pant Bal Niketan' (also known as Bal Niketan) at 11 Bank Road, Allahabad. The above mentioned premises consists of four accommodations One of the portions was allotted to the Secretary, Harijan Welfare and Co-operative Society on 6. 7. 1960 by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Allahabad. The respondent purchased the entire building No. 11 Bank Road, Allahabad, and got into proprietary possession in or about January, 1962. On 16. 8. 1963 one Pitambar Josbi, Manager, Bal Niketan and working in the University Library at Allahabad, made an application to the Rent Control and Evic. tion Officer saying that a portion of the bungalow No. 11 Bank Road, Allahabad, which was in the occupation of 'sangeet Kala Kendra,' had fallen vacant which ha required "for opening Nursery School. in the name of Govind Ballabh Pant Bal Niketan. " Pitambar Joshi, therefore, prayed that the same may be allotted in his name. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer accord, ingly allotted the said accommodation "to Sri Pitambar Joshi, Manager, Bal Niketan" by his order dated 20. 8. 1963. According to the petitioner, the said Pitambar Joshi was removed from managership of Bal Niketan, which institution is thereafter being run and managed by Panna Lal Varshney, Assistant Seoretary of the 8ooiety. Later on 25. 9. 64 the respondent filed suit No. 654 of 1964 against the said Pitambar Joshi for his ejectment from the portion of the premises No. 11 Bank Road, which was allotted to him on 20. 8. 63. In defence the said Pitambar Joshi advanced the plea that the allotment was not in his personal capacity but as the Manager of Bal Niketan. The learned Munsif by his judgment and decree dated 2. 1. 1965 decreed the suit on the finding that the premises in question was allotted to Pitambar Joshi personally and not in his capacity as the Manager of the institution. It may be mentioned here that the petitioner Society was not impleaded to the suit as a party. The respondent decree holder applied for execution of his decree for ejectment of the said Pitambar Joshi, which was registered as execution case No. 26 of 1965. He also prayed for police help. Thereupon the petitioner Society filed suit No. 174 of 1965 in the Court of the Munsif, West, Allahabad, on 9th March, 1965 against the respondent and the said Pitambar Joshi for declaration that the school housed in the accommodation was being run by the Society and the said accommodation was in possession of the Society ever since it was allotted by the Bent Control and Eviction Officer under his order dated 20. 8. 1963. It was further prayed that decree No. 456 of 1964 dated 2. 1. 1965 Beni Prasad Agarwal v. Pitambar Joshi be cancelled as void, ineffective and not binding on the Society. In the aforesaid, suit the petitioner further obtained an injunction order dated 10. 3. 1965 in the following terms: Itsue notice, fixing 13. 4. 1965 for objection and orders. Meanwhile the defendants are restrained from ejecting the plaintiff till the disposal of this application. On 21. 4. 1965 the petitioner society filed an application before the execution Court (7c) praying that the execution of decree No. 654 of 1965 may remain stayed pending decision of its suit No. 174 of 1965. On 8. 5. 1965 the execution Court, after hearing the parties, passed the following order: Harijan Co-operative Housing Society, Allahabad is no party to this execution. Injunction filed by the applicant is against Beni Prasad Agarwal for not ejecting the Harijan Co-operative Housing Society, Allahabad. Counsel for the Housing Society contends '7c', under Order 21, Rule 29 and Section 151, Civil P. C. This Order 21, Rule 20 is applicable to the Court where the suit is pending. I see no force in '7c' hence it is rejected. Execution to proceed. On 10. 5. 1965 the execution Court ordered: Issue Parvana for possession and attachment, as prayed. Report by 29. 6. 1965. On 25. 5. 1965 the Court Amin accompanied by a Police Sub Inspector and constables and Munims of the respondent decree holder reached the premises but did not find the judgment-debtor. Pitambar Joshi there. The Amin was informed that the judgment-debtor had gone to the University. However, one Kanhaiya Lal, Research Scholar, was found on the premises who is alleged to have gone away saying that he was going to call the judgment-debtor. When neither the judgment-debtor nor the said Kanhaiya Lal returned foe quite some time, the Amin broke open the locks of the Hall and another room and took out sundry articles placed therein. At that stage Panna Lal Varshney, Secretary of the Society, appeared on the scene and showed the certified copy of the injunction order of the Munsif, West dated 10. 3. 1965 to the Amin and the police Sub-Inspector. At that very time also appeared on the scene Sri N. C. Upadhya, Advocate, and the aforesaid Kanhaiya Lal who pursuaded the Amin to stop proceedings for delivery of possession. At that juncture, Laxman Das Agarwal, son of the respondent and Sri Deoki Nandan Agarwal, Advocate, made their appearance. The said Laxman Das also gave a writing to the Amin, which translated into English would read: The portion of the house which is sought to be dispossessed is in the possession of the judgment-debtor and the persons who are present on the spot are judgment-debtor's men. Execution proceedings should, therefore, continue and possession be delivered to me. The Amin, however, did not act on it, but stopped further proceedings and got the articles. placed back into the rooms.
(3.)ON the above facts and circumstances, the case of the petitioner Society is that the respondent had committed contempt of the Court of Munsif West, Allahabad, by flouting the injunction order dated 10. 3. 1965 passed by him and by showing disrespect to that Court and its process.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.