1

IN THE COURT OF SH.VISHAL SINGH, CIVIL JUDGE,

DELHI

Contempt App. No. of 2008

IN

Suit no.M-63 of 2006

IN RE:

ANIL KUMAR . PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

ANIL KAPOOR .. DEFENDANT

AND IN THE MATTER OF:

Anil Kapoor
Son of Sh.O.P.Kapoor
R/o A-2/30, Safdarjung Enclave,
New Delhi. . Petitioner

Versus

1. Anil Kumar
S/o Panna Lal
r/o 1713A, Rishi Nagar,
Kotla Mubarakpur,
New Delhi.

2. Mrs.Kiran Dabral, Deputy Commissioner,

M.C.D., South Zone, Green Park,
New Delhi.

3. Shri L.R.Verma, Zonal Health Officer

M.C.D., South Zone, Green Park,
New Delhi. .. Respondents
 2

APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 2A READ WITH

SECTION 151 CPC ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
DEFENDANT NO.1 FOR INITIATING CONTEMPT
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS

RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the above matter is pending adjudication

before this Hon'ble Court and the Petitioner

/Defendant no.1 is running his Maruti

Authorised Showroom in the premises known as

Kamal Cinema Building.

2. That the Plaintiff /Respondent no.1 herein has

field the above suit for Injunction in respect of the

alleged Tehbazari rights available to him

consequent upon allotment by the MCD.

3. That the Petitioner /Defendant no.1 came to know

that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi has

demolished the tehbazari of the Plaintiff

/Respondent no.1 herein measuring 6’ X 4’ and

this Hon'ble Court was pleased to issue certain

directions to the other persons and this Hon'ble

Court has further extended injunction with regard

to the tehbazari rights. The Petitioner has filed an

application before this Hon'ble Court stating

 3

therein that the Plaintiff has started selling

eatable at the said site.

4. That the Respondent no.1/Plaintiff has no right,

title or authority to sell eatables on the main road

contrary to the directions of Tehbazari allotted to

him. Since the Petitioner is running its Maruti

Authorised showroom in the premises and the act

of the Respondent no.1 is causing hazardous to

the person and property of the Petitioner

/Defendant no.1.

5. That the Plaintiff/Respondent no.1 has claimed a

right on pavement and it is case of the Plaintiff

that he was allotted a tehbazari site measuring 6 x

4 ft. on 8.1.2004 and it is the case of the

Defendant no.1/Petitioner that the Plaintiff is

misusing the said kiosk contrary to the tehbazari

rights. It is pertinent to mention that there is no

right available to the Plaintiff qua the pavement

and as per tehbazari rights, a person who is

allowed on tehbazari rights has not to construct a

permanent structure or to cause any obstruction

to the others as the sites are allotted for squatting

for temporary purposes i.e. transact the business

 4

during the day time and remove the belonging in

the evening and there is no permanent structure

at the tehbazari site.

6. That the Plaintiff /Respondent no.1 has

constructed a permanent structure which was

demolished by MCD and the Plaintiff with a view

to raise the permanent structure of 6 x 4 and to

install a clay oven on the road whereby causing

obstruction on the pavement by squatting and

also by use of kerosene stove which is contrary to

the factual position and bye laws.

7. That the Plaintiff /Respondent no.1 has no right,

title or authority to cause obstruction and to

install clay oven, use the site 6 x 4 ft. for cooking

purposes / squatting purposes in conformity with

the bye-laws and under any circumstances, the

Plaintiff cannot be permitted to have his clay oven

or kerosene stove at the site as both clay oven and

kerosene stove are not permitting in the squatting

zone and the Plaintiff /Respondent no.1 has to

confine his affairs to the 6 x 4 ft. portion only and

cannot be permitted to encroach upon the

 5

pavement or cause any interference to the

Petitioner /Defendant no.1.

8. That the Petitioner /Defendant no.1 has his

Maruti Authorised Showroom besides State Bank

of Patiala is running its branch office from the

premises and the intentions of the Plaintiff is to

install a clay oven under the garb of direction

passed by this Hon'ble Court and at no point of

time, the Petitioner /Defendant no.1 ever caused

any interference in the squatting of the Plaintiff in

the 6 X 4 portion and thus it was become

imperative to seek modification of the order passed

by this Hon'ble Court on 27.8.2008 and the

Petitioner was constrained to move application

seeking modification of the order.

9. That the Petitioner /Defendant no.1 has informed

the Respondent no.2 & 3 and other local

authorities on 13.9.2008 and 15.9.2008 (copies

enclosed) regarding the illegal acts of the

Respondent no.1 of misusing the site in question,

as stated above. The Petitioner has also taken

photographs of the Respondent no.1 showing the

 6

violation caused by the Respondent no.1 qua the

tehbazari rights. The Petitioner has informed the

Respondent no.2 & 3 to take appropriate action

against the Respondent no. 1 for his such acts

but the Respondent no.2 & 3 have not taken any

action against the Respondent no.1.

10. That the Respondent no.1 is continuing with his

illegal acts and has deliberately flouting /violating

the orders of this Hon'ble Court and as such, all

the Respondents have committed contempt of the

courts of the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court

as the Respondent no.2 & 3 are permitting the

Respondent no.1 to cause such acts in complete

violating the tehbazari rights as well as the orders

passed by this Hon'ble Court, as till date they

have failed to take necessary action against the

Respondent no.1

11. That the Respondent no.2 & 3 being the

responsible officials of the MCD are under

obligation to stop the Respondent no.1 from

misusing the tehbazari site contrary to the rules of

the MCD and it is the Respondent no.2 & 3 who

 7

are under obligation to ensure implementation of

the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in its

true letter and spirit.

12. That all the Respondents as such have committed

contempt of the court of the order passed by this

Hon'ble Court and thus the are liable to be

summoned, tried and punished for their such

acts.

13. That in order to keep the dignity of the judicial

orders passed by the courts of law and faith in the

general public, it will be in the interest of justice

that stern action may be taken against the

Respondents.

14. That the application is being filed bonafide and in

the interest of justice.

PRAYER:

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this

Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to initiate

contempt proceedings against the Respondents for their

acts committed by them and they may be summoned,

 8

tried and punished in accordance with law, in the

interest of justice.

Pass any other or further order as this Hon'ble

Court may deem fit and proper in favour of the

Defendant and against the Plaintiff.

Petitioner

Through:

Delhi. Kalpna Anil Associates

Dated: 6.10.2008 Advocates
90/18A, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi
 9

IN THE COURT OF SH.VISHAL SINGH, CIVIL JUDGE,

DELHI

Contempt App. No. of 2008

IN

Suit no.M-63 of 2006

IN RE:

ANIL KUMAR . PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

ANIL KAPOOR .. DEFENDANT

AFFIDAVIT

Affidavit of Anil Kapoor Son of Shri O.P.Kapoor, C/o

Kamal Cinema Building, Safdarjung Enclave, New

Delhi.

I, the above named deponent do hereby

solemnly affirm and declare as under:

1. That I am the Petitioner/Defendant no.1 in the above

suit and am well conversant with the facts of the

case and as such, I am competent to swear this

affidavit.

2. That the accompanying application under Order 39

Rule 2A R/W Section 151 CPC has been drafted

 10

under my instructions by my counsel. The contents

stated therein are true and correct to my knowledge

and the same may kindly be read as part and parcel

of this affidavit, as the same are not being repeated

herein for the sake of brevity and in order to avoid

repetition.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:

Verified at Delhi on this 6th day of October, 2008

that the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct

to my knowledge and nothing material has been concealed

therefrom.

DEPONENT