K.P.Singh - (1.) THIS is an application under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 filed by the plaintiff-decree holder against the defendant opposite party.
(2.) SHORN of unnecessary details, the facts giving rise to the above mentioned application are these. The applicants' suit for eviction of the defendant opposite party was decreed by the trial court on 15-3-1986. The appeal against the judgment of the trial court failed on 30-7-1986. The second appeal was also dismissed by me on 20-10-1986 and the operative portion runs as below :- "There is no substantial question of law involved in the present second appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed under Order 41 Rule 11 CPC subject to the condition that the appellant shall remain in the house in suit for six months and in the meantime she shall make alternative arrangement and hand over the peaceful possession of the house in suit to the respondent. The appellant shall pay to the respondent at the rate decreed by the court below for use and occupation, for . coming six months and she shall also pay the arrears of rent as decreed by the courts below. The above observation has been made on the undertaking of the learned counsel for the appellant. A copy of the order may be given within 24 hours." Two applications were moved by the opposite party for extension of time which were allowed. Another application was moved by the opposite party Km. Beena Misra for extension of time and the same was disposed of by me on 10-9-1987 with the following observation :- "Heard the applicant and the learned counsel for the opposite parties. More than 11 months time has been granted to the applicant to give possession to the opposite parties. On the last occasion she had stated that she would not pray for any extension of time but again she has applied for further six months time to vacate the premises in question. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, I do not consider it a fit case for extension of any further time to the applicant. More than sufficient time has been granted. Now the applicant, should vacate the premises peacefully so that the opposite parties may get possession over the premises in question. The application is hereby rejected."
(3.) THEREAFTER the opposite party appears to have filed an objection under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure and have prayed for stay of the execution proceeding which was rejected by the trial court. Against that order, the revision was allowed by the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar on 4-1-1988. It appears that the objection filed by the contesting opposite party Km. Beena Misra was dismissed by the trial court on 13-4-1988. Against the order of the trial court, a miscellaneous Appeal no. 111 of 1988 appears to have been filed by the opposite party which is pending before the 5th Addl. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar. The execution of the ex parte order appears to have been stayed by the order dated 18-12-1988. When the revision petition preferred by the aforesaid Km. Beena Misra was allowed by the District Judge on 4-1-1988 against the order dated 20-11-1987 rejecting the stay application, the decree-holder applicant moved this court for punishing the opposite party on the allegations committing contempt of this court through an application dated 18-1-1988. A learned Single Judge of this court indicated that the case should be listed before me for admission. On 18-2-1988 the Acting Chief Justice directed the case to be listed before me. On 21-3-1988 time was granted to the applicant to file the copy of the objection filed by the opposite party and directed the case to be listed on 8-4-1988. On 8-4-1988 it appears that the copy of the objection preferred by the contesting opposite party in the execution proceedings was filed along with an affidavit and thereafter I passed the following order : "Let notice go to Km. Beena Misra daughter of Vidya Dhar Misra, resident of 1/4 Kamla Nagar Colony, Kanpur to show cause why should she not be punished for contempt. She should appear personally or through some counsel on 9-5-1988 before this court." It appears that on 6-12-1988 one Sri J. P. Srivastava Advocate of this court filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the sole opposite party and the case was listed before me on 7-12-1988 and on that date I directed that the case be listed correctly with the name of Sri J. P. Srivastava counsel for the opposite party on 13-12-1988. On 14-12-1988, I passed the following order :- "Admit. Issue notice. Three weeks time is granted to the opposite party to file counter affidavit." On 23-1-1989 and 24-1-1989 on the illness slip of Sri J. P. Srivastava, Advocate, the case was passed over. Again on 30-1-1989 the case was passed over. On 8-2-1989 on the illness slip of Sri Vijai Bahadur, counsel for the applicant, the case was passed over. On 9-2-1989 the following order was passed by me :- "three weeks and no more is granted to the opposite party for filing counter affidavit. The counsel for the opposite party is absent. Let a notice be sent to Km. Beena Misra to appear in this court on 7-3-1989. If she does not appear on the date, she would be punished for contempt. Office will intimate the opposite party Km. Beena Misra that she should be careful in appearing before the court on the date fixed." On 7-3-1989, the following order was passed :- " On 9-2-1989 office was directed to intimate opposite party no. 1 Km. Beena Misra to appear before this court on the date fixed. Office has indicated in the report dt. 3-3-1989 that notices after service have not been received back. Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to take fresh steps with regard to service upon opposite party Km. Beena Misra. The office may take care that the notices may be served upon O. P. no. 1 Km. Beena Misra if necessary through C.M.M. Kanpur. Let the case be listed on 17-4-89 and the office should intimate the opposite party to appear on the date fixed." On the application filed by Sri J. P. Srivastava, 25-4-89 was fixed and the contemner was directed to be present in court. However on 25-4-1989 the counter affidavit was filed by Sri O. P. Singh, Advocate of this court and ten days time was granted for filing rejoinder affidavit. The case was directed to be listed on 9-5-1989. The contemner was directed to be present in court. The case was directed to be listed on 17-5-1989. Then on next day the case was taken up but the counsel for the contemner did not appear and on the suggestion of the counsel for the applicant, the case was directed to be listed on 11-7-1989. The learned counsel for the contemner did not appear on 11-7-1989 and the order was reserved. However, I called Sri O. P. Singh, Advocate, in chamber and intimated him of his fault. He requested me for the case to be listed for further hearing and explained his position for absence on 11-7-1989. Accepting his request, I directed the case to be listed for further hearing on 2-8-1989. On 2-8-1989 the case was heard." ;