Created Third Party Rights By Executing Agreement To Sell Despite Interim Order Prohibiting It: Gujarat High Court Holds Senior Citizens Guilty Of Contempt
The Gujarat High Court, in wake of the fact that the contemnors were senior citizens, imposed a fine instead of sending them to civil prison.
The Gujarat High Court found four senior citizens guilty of contempt after noting that they created third party rights by executing an agreement ot sell despite an interim order prohibiting the same.
The Court, in wake of the fact that the contemnors were senior citizens, imposed a fine instead of sending them to civil prison. The Court also directed the contemnors to deposit Rs. 1,00,000 as costs.
A Division Bench of Justice AS Supehia and Justice Nisha M Thakore held that “the respondents have entered into the agreement to sell and have received the amount of Rs.4,15,00,000/- and thus, created third party rights in favour of one Manishkumar Ravjibhai Patel, who has also instituted a suit for specific performance before the civil Court...Thus, the action of the respondent nos.1 to 4 in entering into agreement on acceptance of part consideration would hit by the interim order and it would amount to creation of interest, which is prohibited.”
Advocate Archana R Acharya appeared for the Applicants, while Advocate Anantanand J Singh represented the Opponents.
Brief Facts
The contempt application was filed seeking action against the Respondents for executing an agreement to sell despite the status quo Order passed by the Court in a Civil Application (For Stay). The Applicants contended that the Respondents had created third-party rights for a consideration which they already received.
A Coordinate Bench had earlier framed charges against the Respondents, noting that they had violated the status quo Order by executing the agreement to sell. The Respondents challenged the Order of framing charges before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court noted that the Respondents contended that they were not aware of the status quo Order and submitted an unconditional apology. However, the Court observed that the mutation entries in the revenue records clearly reflected the status quo order and formed part of the registered agreement to sell.
The Court also noted that the matter before the Coordinate Bench was considerably adjourned on numerous occasions and the order-sheet did not reflect that the Respondents had tendered any unconditional apology.
“It is pertinent to note that the contemnors for the first time have tendered an unconditional apology in the affidavit dated 11th February, 2025,” it remarked.
The Bench referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Patel Rajnikant Dhulabhai v. Patel Chandrakant Dhulabhai (2008) wherein it was held, “Willful and deliberate disobedience of the orders passed by the apex Court of the country can never be said to be bona fide, honest or in good faith. If it is so, the action calls for serious view to ensure proper administration of justice.”
The Court further remarked, “At the time of passing the order dated 04.03.2024 by the Coordinated Bench, the contemnors have not whispered about any apology and have not expressed any remorse of executing the agreement to sell in defiance of the orders passed by this Court. On the contrary, they have vehemently contested before the Coordinated Bench and also before the Supreme Court.”
Thus, in light of the Order passed by the Coordinate Bench of framing the charge and in wake of the undisputed fact of executing a registered agreement to sell, receipt of the consideration, and further creating third party rights, the Court found the Respondents guilty of civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Rule-2(a) of the Order 39 of the CPC. “We also reject the unconditional apology tendered at the fag end of the proceedings,” it held.
Consequently, the Court held, “On overall appreciation of the facts of the present case and in wake of the fact that the respondent…are senior citizens, we do not intend to be harsh on them by sending them to a civil prison. Hence, we impose a fine of Rs.2,000/- on each of them…We also declare the agreement to sell…as non est and void ab initio and as a sequel, the same is quashed and set aside.”
Cause Title: Dineshbhai Dhulabhai Parmar & Anr. v. Damyantiben Narayanbhai Chauhan & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:GUJHC:14682-DB)
Appearance:
Applicants: Advocate Archana R Acharya
Opponents: Advocates Anantanand J Singh, Akanksha U Tiwari and Amarkant Mishra for Parth Y Raval
