Khushi Doshi
Published on: April 27, 2022 at 19:08 IST
The Delhi High Court held a party in Civil Contempt, stating that Disobedience of Court Orders, if allowed, will strike at the heart of the Rule of Law that underpins our system of Governance.
An undertaking issued to the Court must be respected, according to Justice Subramonium Prasad, and parties cannot be allowed to avoid it by claiming that they were not participating in the matter and did not give the undertaking.
The Petitioner inherited a high-end property in south Delhi from her deceased sister. The Petitioner’s brother-in-law, who was married to another of the Petitioner’s sisters, lived on the property’s ground level.
After the death of the other sister, the husband claimed ownership of the bottom floor. They then put up a settlement agreement that permitted him to stay there till his death but gave the Petitioner ownership rights after he died.
On March 14, 2012, the Delhi High Court ordered this arrangement under Order XXIII Rule 1/3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Petitioner initiated the contempt Case after the Petitioner’s brother-in-relatives law’s claimed a right to the ground floor property based on a registered will signed in 2009.
The Court found it ‘well-settled’ that, while a person who is not a party to a particular proceeding cannot be Prosecuted for violating the Order in general, a third party cannot be absolved if they have been informed that their conduct constitutes a Violation of the Court Order and, despite the information, choose to wilfully disregard the Court’s mandate.
Even if it was assumed that the brother-in-relative law’s was initially unaware of the Decree, the Order stated that once she was informed of the undertaking given by him, through whom she derives the title, she was required to respect the undertaking given to the Court and not to repeatedly violate it.