- (1.) The Court:- Petitioner complains of violation of the judgment and order dated July 20, 2016 passed by this Court.
(2.) Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner draws the attention of the Court to the judgment and order dated July 20, 2016. He submits that, such judgment and order recorded the undertaking of the contemnors that, they had given up their prayer for possession. He submits that, such prayer for possession was given up by the contemnors before the Appeal Court. He refers to the order of the Appeal Court dated November 14, 2014. He submits that, despite the contemnors giving up the prayer for possession, the contemnors, before the Arbitrator contended that, the contemnors did not give up the right for possession. He refers to the averments made by the contemnors in the arbitration proceedings appearing in the affidavit-in-opposition to the application dated October 3, 2018 filed before the Arbitrator. He submits that, the Court referring the parties to arbitration could not have assumed jurisdiction without the contemnors giving up the prayer for possession. Therefore, once the contemnors gave up the prayer for possession, the contemnors cannot take a stand contrary to their undertaking. The petitioner is guilty of committing Contempt of Court. He relies upon a judgment reported in (2009) 16 Supreme Court Cases 126 (Rama Narang-Versus- Ramesh Narang & Another) in support of his contentions.
(3.) Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the alleged contemnors submits on instructions that, at the outset, his clients are not seeking any possession before the Arbitrator. He submits that, the undertaking recorded on behalf of the alleged contemnors must be read and understood to mean that, the undertaking given to the Appeal Court on November 14, 2014 and applied by the Court on July 20, 2016 did not divest the alleged contemnors from the right to claim possession before the appropriate authority, if the alleged contemnors are so entitled to in law. His clients will abide by the undertaking that his clients will not seek possession before the Arbitrator. In fact, according to him, his client abided by the same before the Arbitrator.;