‘Mere averment or bald statement’ not enough to initiate contempt against a person: HC
A single judge bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh in its May 1 order held, "The disobedience must be wilful and must be beyond a casual or accidental/genuine inability to comply with the terms of the order."
3 min read
The court observed that the defendants had failed to show that the plaintiff had disobeyed the orders of the previous bench. (File) The Delhi High Court has observed that a “mere averment or a bald statement” is not enough to initiate contempt proceedings or issue a show cause notice against a person. The HC made the observations while dismissing a contempt application filed by defendants in a civil suit arising out of a property dispute seeking contempt action against the plaintiff’s power of attorney holder for disobeying the court’s order passed on October 4, 2013.
A single judge bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh in its May 1 order held, “The disobedience must be wilful and must be beyond a casual or accidental/genuine inability to comply with the terms of the order. Moreover, mere unintentional disobedience is not enough, an absence of wilful disobedience on the part of the contemnor, will not hold him guilty unless the contempt involves a degree of fault or misconduct”.
A bald statement is one which is without any extra explanation or detail to help understand or accept what is being said. An averment is a formal statement by a party in a case of a fact or circumstance which the party has to prove.
The defendants said the power of attorney holder, the alleged contemnor, wilfully, deliberately, and intentionally disobeyed the order. They said a statement was made by the plaintiff’s lawyer before a previous bench the Notice Board in the suit property would be removed and that the power of attorney holder was bound by the statement. The defendants apprehended that the power of attorney holder was looking for prospective buyers and had entered into transactions for the sale of the suit property on behalf of the deceased plaintiff.
The court referred to the plaintiff’s reply to the contempt application wherein the alleged contemnor/plaintiff and the power of attorney holder had categorically denied the averments made by the defendants. The plaintiff said he had neither constructed any office on the suit property nor has occupied the same or any part thereof.
The court also referred to a report of the local commissioner appointed in the matter which said that after inspecting the property he found that there were no occupants except guards.
“A bare reading of the aforesaid shows that the Local Commissioner had made the above statement after inspection of the site. He found that there were no occupants at the site except for the guards. There is no observation in the Report which suggests that the alleged contemnor/non-applicant was occupying the suit property or any part/portion thereof. Hence, the allegations made on behalf of the applicants stand defeated,” the high court said.
The court observed that the defendants had failed to show that the plaintiff had disobeyed the orders of the previous bench. “In light of the facts, circumstances, submissions made on behalf of the parties, the contents of the Report of the Local Commissioner, the averments made in the application and arguments in the reply as well as the precedents on what constitutes ‘wilful disobedience’ of an order by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court does not find any cogent reasons to allow the instant application as the applicants have failed to substantiate and establish their averments,” the HC said dismissing the plea.
You May Like
Photos
