Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 28 Contempt Petition 44/25
MOINUDDIN Vs. MUNCIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI
20.01.2026
Present : Sh. Absar Ahmed, Ld counsel for petitioner alongwith petitioner.
Sh. Imran Ahmed, Ld counsel for respondent no.2 to 6.
Arguments on the maintainability of the present petition heard.
Put up for orders at 04:00 P.M.
(Umesh Kumar)
JSCC-Cum-ASCJ-Cum-Guardian Judge-02
Central, Tis Hazari Courts/20.01.2026
At 04:00 P.M
Present : None.
Vide this order, the maintainability of the present petition shall be
decided.
The present petition under Order 39 Rule 2 A CPC has been filed
by the petitioner / plaintiff alleging that the respondent no.2 to 6 have disobeyed
the orders dated 03.12.2024 and 26.05.2025 passed by this Court in case bearing
CS SCJ 2149/2024 titled as ‘ Moinuddin Vs. MCD & Ors’.
Ld counsel for respondent no. 2 to 6 have argued that the aforesaid
civil suit has been rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and since the interim
orders passed on 03.12.2024 and 26.05.2025 have merged with the final order,
therefore, the present petition is not maintainable. It is further submitted that the
petitioner herein had filed another suit regarding the same cause of action which
has also been rejected by the Court of Ld. ASCJ-01/ Central/ Tis Hazari Courts.
-- 1 of 3 --
It is further submitted that the petitioner herein had also filed a writ petition
before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for the same cause of action which has also
been disposed off. It is further submitted that the petitioner is habitual in filing
frivolous cases / petitions alleging unauthorized construction against different
persons in the locality. Ld counsel for respondent no.2 to 6 have placed reliance
on certain case laws i.e.
‘Kirpal Singh & Ors Vs. Satish Kumar Sabharwal &
Ors, 2007 (3) Punjab Law Reporter 0209’, ‘
Mohd. Sher Nabi Chaman Vs. Udit
Prakash Rai & Anr, CONT. CAS (C) 550/2020’ and ‘
Prem Chandra Agarwal &
Anr Vs. U.P Financial Corpn. & Ors, Civil Appeal No. 2769 of 2009’ in support
of his contentions.
Arguments heard. Record perused.
The main contention of respondent no. 2 to 6 is that since the main
suit has been disposed off, therefore, the present petition is not maintainable. In
the case ‘
Kirpal Singh & Ors Vs. Satish Kumar Sabharwal & Ors (Supra)’ and
‘
Mohd. Sher Nabi Chaman Vs. Udit Prakash Rai & Anr, (Supra)’’, the petitions
for initiation of proceedings against alleged breach of interim order were filed
after the main matter was already disposed off. The facts of the case titled as
‘
Prem Chandra Agarwal & Anr Vs. U.P Financial Corpn. & Ors, (Supra)’’ are
distinguishable from the facts of the present petition, therefore, it is not
applicable to the present petition.
Even though the main civil suit has been rejected, however, the
alleged disobedience by respondent no.2 to 6 does not come to an end with the
rejection of plaint. If a defendant breached an injunction while the suit was
alive, they remain liable for that breach. The Court has the power to punish for
such disobedience which is independent of the final outcome of the case. In the
case titled as ‘
Samee Khan Vs. Bindu Khan, AIR (1998) SC 2765’, it has been
-- 2 of 3 --
held the disobedience of an injunction is not erased even if the suit is dismissed
or the plaint is rejected. Since the present petition was filed during the pendency
of the main suit and in view of the aforesaid case law, the present petition is
maintainable, therefore, it is deemed proper that appropriate issue be framed in
this regard.
The following issue for the purpose of adjudication of the present
petition is framed:-
(A) Whether the respondent no 2 to 6 have willfully disobeyed the
orders dated 03.12.2024 and 26.05.2025? OPP.
The petitioner is directed to supply advance copy of affidavits to
the opposite party at least 7 days prior to the next date of hearing.
Put up for PE on 07.04.2026.
(Umesh Kumar)
JSCC-Cum-ASCJ-Cum-Guardian Judge-02
Central, Tis Hazari Courts/20.01.2026
-- 3 of 3 --