Unmesh Singh And Another vs Party(s)

relied upon the Survey Commissioner Report filed before the Trial Court where the SCC suit.

3. It is further submitted that there is no willful or intentional non- compliance of the judgement and order passed in the writ petition as the thing which is not in existence then how the possession could be given for the same.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has filed SCC Suit No.29 of 2014 for eviction of the respondents from his premises in which the decree was passed and the respondents are not vacating the same and they have approached this Court by filing Writ-C No.351 of 2025. The writ petition was disposed 2 CAPL No. 1054 of 2025 of on the undertaking of the respondents' counsel that the respondents would vacate one room on the third floor of the premises in question within a period of 15 days from today (date of order) and handed over the keys to the respondent (present applicant) and liberty was given to the applicant that in case the respondents do not abide by the said undertaking, she may initiate contempt proceedings against them, hence. the present contempt applicant has been filed.

5. It is further submitted that the survey commission report relied by the respondents is not in the SCC Suit no. 29 of 2014 in which the decree was passed or pertaining to that the writ petition was preferred by the respondents.

6. It is further submitted that one Regular Suit No.695/2009 was filed by the Respondent No.1 against Ashu Gupta i.e. the present applicant in which during the cross-examination the Respondent No.1 had admitted that the disputed house is of three story.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, the respondents had approached this Court by filing Writ C No.351 of 2025 in which their counsel had submitted that the decree was confined for one room on third floor of the premises in question, the entire premises which is under occupation of the petitioner/ respondent is sought to be taken and the counsel for the petitioner / respondents undertakes that he would vacate one room of third floor within fifteen days and handed over the key to the applicant, for convenience the order dated 20.01.2025 passed in Writ - C No.351 of 2025 is quoted hereinbelow : "7. The counsel for the petitioner undertakes that he would vacate the one room on the third floor of the premises in question within a period of 15 days from today and hand over the keys to the respondents. In the failure of the petitioner to abide by the said undertaking, the respondent would be at liberty to initiate the proceedings of contempt.

8. It is once again clarified that the said undertaking is confined to one room on the third floor, for which, a JSCC Decree was passed in favour of the respondents. "

8. From perusal of the judgement and order passed in the writ petition, the respondent had approached the Court against the order dated 9.10.2024, 3 CAPL No. 1054 of 2025 whereby the executing court i.e. JSCC had directed the Amin to take possession by use of force and when the Amin was to take possession / occupation of the whole house then the respondents had come before this court with a plea that the decree was only for one room situated on third floor of the premises in question and not for whole of the house and after the undertaking given by the counsel for the respondents that they will vacate one room on the 3rd floor within 15 days and handed over the keys, the writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the applicant that if the respondents do not abide by their undertaking the applicant may initiate proceeding of contempt.

9. On being asked from the Respondent No.1 that had he made any statement as mentioned above in his cross - examination in Regular Suit No.695 of 2009 between the same parties that the disputed house is three story, he has said that it is his statement and he had not disputed the same because as per his understanding ground floor, 1st floor and and 2nd floor, means three floors.

10. The defense taken by the respondent that there is no room on the 3rd floor of the disputed house/ property before this Court while in the writ petition the case was totally different as submitted on behalf of respondents as per submission made in the writ petition and the undertaking given on their behalf by the counsel that the decree was only for taking the possession of one room situated at the 3rd floor on the premises in question and they are ready to hand over the keys within fifteen days and now taking u-turn by coming with a case that no such room is in existence cannot be seen in the contempt proceedings, particularly, on the previous occasion this court prior to framing the charge against the respondents had specifically asked whether any review, special appeal preferred by the respondents against the judgement and order dated 20.01.2025 they had replied that they had not preferred any of the proceedings against the judgement and order dated 20.01.2025, the relevant para of order dated 04.09.2025 is quoted hereinbelow: "On being asked from Shri Unmesh Singh-the respondent no. 1 whether he has preferred any review or special appeal against the judgment and order dated 20.01.2025 where he had given undertaking for vacating the one room on third floor of premises in question and hand over the keys within fifteen days, he 4 CAPL No. 1054 of 2025 has replied that none of the respondents in the present case have either filed review or special appeal against the judgment and order dated 20.01.2025. In view of the aforesaid, what comes out is that the judgment and order of the Writ Court dated

20.01.2025 is still holds good and is in existence and not handing over the keys of third floor despite that is nothing but intentional and wilful disobedience of the judgment and order of the Writ Court. In the aforesaid circumstances, a case under Rule 5 of Chapter XXXV-E of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (Rules framed under Section 23 of Contempt of Courts Act,1971) is made out, accordingly, the following charge is being framed against the respondent nos. 1 and 2 namely Sri Unmesh Singh, House No. 11/662, Indira Nagar, Lucknow and Smt Meena Singh, House No. 11/662, Indira Nagar, Lucknow respectively. "Why contemnors - respondent nos. 1 and 2 be not punished for willful and deliberate disobedience of the judgement and order dated 20.01.2025 passed in Writ C No. 351 of 2025 (Umesh Singh and Another Vs. Judge Small Cause Lko and another). The respondent nos. 1 and 2 is granted two weeks' time to file reply to the aforesaid charge. List this case on 18.09.2025. On the next date of listing, names of Shri Unmesh Singh and Smt. Meena Singh be shown as respondents, who are appearing in person in the list. On the said date, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 shall appear before this Court. "

11. The admission before the trial Court though in some other proceedings relating to the same property between the same parties by the respondent that the disputed building is having three floors and now giving some different interpretation as per his understanding is not acceptable.

12. It is an admitted case of the respondent that till the date he had not handed over the keys to the applicant, this is nothing but a wilful defiance of the judgement and order passed by the writ court and the respondents are liable to be punished under Section 12 of the Contempt Court Act,

13. Accordingly, the respondents (1. Unmesh Singh and 2. Meena Singh) are awarded a sentence of one month simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1500/-

14. The amount of fine shall be deposited within one month and he shall surrender before the C.J.M. Lucknow to serve the sentence within ten days from today. In case he does not surrender within the time given 5 CAPL No. 1054 of 2025 above, the C.J.M. Lucknow shall cause them to be arrested to serve on the sentence.

15. In view of the facts and discussion made hereinabove, the Contempt Application is allowed.

16. The Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the C.J.M. Lucknow. October 28, 2025 S. Kumar (Manish Kumar,J.) SANTOSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

relied upon the Survey Commissioner Report filed before the Trial Court where the SCC suit.

3. It is further submitted that there is no willful or intentional non- compliance of the judgement and order passed in the writ petition as the thing which is not in existence then how the possession could be given for the same.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has filed SCC Suit No.29 of 2014 for eviction of the respondents from his premises in which the decree was passed and the respondents are not vacating the same and they have approached this Court by filing Writ-C No.351 of 2025. The writ petition was disposed 2 CAPL No. 1054 of 2025 of on the undertaking of the respondents' counsel that the respondents would vacate one room on the third floor of the premises in question within a period of 15 days from today (date of order) and handed over the keys to the respondent (present applicant) and liberty was given to the applicant that in case the respondents do not abide by the said undertaking, she may initiate contempt proceedings against them, hence. the present contempt applicant has been filed.

5. It is further submitted that the survey commission report relied by the respondents is not in the SCC Suit no. 29 of 2014 in which the decree was passed or pertaining to that the writ petition was preferred by the respondents.

6. It is further submitted that one Regular Suit No.695/2009 was filed by the Respondent No.1 against Ashu Gupta i.e. the present applicant in which during the cross-examination the Respondent No.1 had admitted that the disputed house is of three story.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, the respondents had approached this Court by filing Writ C No.351 of 2025 in which their counsel had submitted that the decree was confined for one room on third floor of the premises in question, the entire premises which is under occupation of the petitioner/ respondent is sought to be taken and the counsel for the petitioner / respondents undertakes that he would vacate one room of third floor within fifteen days and handed over the key to the applicant, for convenience the order dated 20.01.2025 passed in Writ - C No.351 of 2025 is quoted hereinbelow : "7. The counsel for the petitioner undertakes that he would vacate the one room on the third floor of the premises in question within a period of 15 days from today and hand over the keys to the respondents. In the failure of the petitioner to abide by the said undertaking, the respondent would be at liberty to initiate the proceedings of contempt.

8. It is once again clarified that the said undertaking is confined to one room on the third floor, for which, a JSCC Decree was passed in favour of the respondents. "

8. From perusal of the judgement and order passed in the writ petition, the respondent had approached the Court against the order dated 9.10.2024, 3 CAPL No. 1054 of 2025 whereby the executing court i.e. JSCC had directed the Amin to take possession by use of force and when the Amin was to take possession / occupation of the whole house then the respondents had come before this court with a plea that the decree was only for one room situated on third floor of the premises in question and not for whole of the house and after the undertaking given by the counsel for the respondents that they will vacate one room on the 3rd floor within 15 days and handed over the keys, the writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the applicant that if the respondents do not abide by their undertaking the applicant may initiate proceeding of contempt.

9. On being asked from the Respondent No.1 that had he made any statement as mentioned above in his cross - examination in Regular Suit No.695 of 2009 between the same parties that the disputed house is three story, he has said that it is his statement and he had not disputed the same because as per his understanding ground floor, 1st floor and and 2nd floor, means three floors.

10. The defense taken by the respondent that there is no room on the 3rd floor of the disputed house/ property before this Court while in the writ petition the case was totally different as submitted on behalf of respondents as per submission made in the writ petition and the undertaking given on their behalf by the counsel that the decree was only for taking the possession of one room situated at the 3rd floor on the premises in question and they are ready to hand over the keys within fifteen days and now taking u-turn by coming with a case that no such room is in existence cannot be seen in the contempt proceedings, particularly, on the previous occasion this court prior to framing the charge against the respondents had specifically asked whether any review, special appeal preferred by the respondents against the judgement and order dated 20.01.2025 they had replied that they had not preferred any of the proceedings against the judgement and order dated 20.01.2025, the relevant para of order dated 04.09.2025 is quoted hereinbelow: "On being asked from Shri Unmesh Singh-the respondent no. 1 whether he has preferred any review or special appeal against the judgment and order dated 20.01.2025 where he had given undertaking for vacating the one room on third floor of premises in question and hand over the keys within fifteen days, he 4 CAPL No. 1054 of 2025 has replied that none of the respondents in the present case have either filed review or special appeal against the judgment and order dated 20.01.2025. In view of the aforesaid, what comes out is that the judgment and order of the Writ Court dated

20.01.2025 is still holds good and is in existence and not handing over the keys of third floor despite that is nothing but intentional and wilful disobedience of the judgment and order of the Writ Court. In the aforesaid circumstances, a case under Rule 5 of Chapter XXXV-E of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (Rules framed under Section 23 of Contempt of Courts Act,1971) is made out, accordingly, the following charge is being framed against the respondent nos. 1 and 2 namely Sri Unmesh Singh, House No. 11/662, Indira Nagar, Lucknow and Smt Meena Singh, House No. 11/662, Indira Nagar, Lucknow respectively. "Why contemnors - respondent nos. 1 and 2 be not punished for willful and deliberate disobedience of the judgement and order dated 20.01.2025 passed in Writ C No. 351 of 2025 (Umesh Singh and Another Vs. Judge Small Cause Lko and another). The respondent nos. 1 and 2 is granted two weeks' time to file reply to the aforesaid charge. List this case on 18.09.2025. On the next date of listing, names of Shri Unmesh Singh and Smt. Meena Singh be shown as respondents, who are appearing in person in the list. On the said date, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 shall appear before this Court. "

11. The admission before the trial Court though in some other proceedings relating to the same property between the same parties by the respondent that the disputed building is having three floors and now giving some different interpretation as per his understanding is not acceptable.

12. It is an admitted case of the respondent that till the date he had not handed over the keys to the applicant, this is nothing but a wilful defiance of the judgement and order passed by the writ court and the respondents are liable to be punished under Section 12 of the Contempt Court Act,

13. Accordingly, the respondents (1. Unmesh Singh and 2. Meena Singh) are awarded a sentence of one month simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1500/-

14. The amount of fine shall be deposited within one month and he shall surrender before the C.J.M. Lucknow to serve the sentence within ten days from today. In case he does not surrender within the time given 5 CAPL No. 1054 of 2025 above, the C.J.M. Lucknow shall cause them to be arrested to serve on the sentence.

15. In view of the facts and discussion made hereinabove, the Contempt Application is allowed.

16. The Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the C.J.M. Lucknow. October 28, 2025 S. Kumar (Manish Kumar,J.) SANTOSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench