Court says release of dogs, aggressive conduct and interference by persons linked to appellants prima facie amounted to wilful disobedience of its orders
The Delhi High Court has issued contempt notice against two persons after a court-appointed Local Commissioner reported serious obstruction during the execution of a commission at a suit property, including aggressive interference, repeated challenges to the Commissioner’s authority, and the release of dogs during the inspection.
Justice Amit Bansal was hearing an application filed by the respondent under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, alleging violation of court orders and obstruction in the execution of the Local Commission appointed by the Court.
According to the Local Commissioner’s report, Mr. Pravesh Lakra, son of appellant no. 2, and Mr. Chandan Shukla interfered with the inspection in a confrontational manner. The report stated that Mr. Lakra questioned the Commissioner’s identity and authority, objected to the inspection on multiple grounds, and continued to oppose the proceedings despite being informed that the entire process was being recorded.
The Court took particular note of the incident where two dogs were released from a kennel at the back of the property while the inspection was underway. The release of the dogs caused interruption during the proceedings and required intervention by a police official to restore the inspection.
The Local Commissioner also recorded that Mr. Lakra repeatedly shouted instructions such as “bahar nikalo inko” and “reel nikalo inki,” and made distasteful remarks, including a comment suggesting that the Commissioner was “taking advantage of being a woman.” The report further noted that the objectionable conduct continued even after the persons concerned were told that the proceedings and any obstruction would be documented.
Observing that this was a serious matter, the Court held that the material on record prima facie showed obstruction in the execution of the Commission appointed by the Court and wilful disobedience of its orders. The Court therefore issued contempt notice to Mr. Pravesh Lakra and Mr. Chandan Shukla and directed them to file affidavits within four weeks explaining why action should not be initiated against them under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC.
The Court also directed that both individuals remain physically present on the next date of hearing, along with the appellants.
Bottom Line :
Obstruction in execution of Local Commission appointed by Court, including release of dogs and aggressive interference by persons acting for appellants, amounts to prima facie wilful disobedience of Court orders, warranting issuance of contempt notice and notice under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC.
Statutory provision(s): Order XXXIX Rule 2A, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
Sis Ram (Deceased) v. Sanjay Gupta, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2984394
