Pamela Manmohan Singh vs Harnam Kaur (Deceased Through … on 24 March, 2017

Cont Cas Nos.113/1993, 45/2007 & 46/2007 in CS(OS) No.206/2016 Page 1 of 21
2. Vide order dated 14th March, 1990, while issuing summons of the

suit, the defendants no.1 to 3 were restrained from transferring,

alienating or parting with possession of property No.6-B, Jangpura,

Mathura Road, New Delhi, wholly or in part, in any manner and from

raising any further construction on the said property.

3. Contempt Case No.113/1993 has been filed averring disobedience by

the defendants no.1 to 3 of the aforesaid order dated 14th March, 1990.

It is pleaded i) that upon the defendants no.1 to 3, in disobedience of

the order dated 14th March, 1990, continuing with the construction,

the plaintiff applied for appointment of a Commissioner to visit the

premises and vide order dated 9th February, 1993, a Court

Commissioner was appointed to visit the premises and to report about

the construction in existence; ii) that the Court Commissioner visited

the property on 1st March, 1993 and filed a report dated 22nd April,

1993 detailing the existing construction in the property; iii) that

though as per the report of the Court Commissioner there was only

one entrance gate to the property but the defendants no.1 to 3 have

thereafter constructed an additional gate; iv) that the defendants no.1

to 3 have also demolished the entire outer block described in the

Cont Cas Nos.113/1993, 45/2007 & 46/2007 in CS(OS) No.206/2016 Page 2 of 21
report of the Court Commissioner; v) that the defendants no.1 to 3

have constructed a room adjacent to the front wall where the

additional gate has been constructed; vi) that the defendants no.1 to 3

have converted the tin sheet roof of the main block to a cemented roof

and have also constructed doors, windows, ventilators and board

panels annexed with the roof; vii) that the defendants no.1 to 3 have

made other structural changes; and, viii) that the defendants no.1 to 3

have also parted with possession of the property to owners of

“BELTEK”. Reliefs, of sealing of the property, punishing the

defendants no.1 to 3 and purging of the contempt have been sought.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply

*