Ramesh Chawla v. Dr Mohad Sabir Khan

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J JULY 24, 2026/nd/DJ

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 24.07.2026 + CONT.CAS(C) 532/2019 RAMESH CHAWLA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sameer Chandra, Mr. Shubham Parashar, Mr. Aryan Tomar and Mr. Fahad Zia, Advocates along with Petitioner in person. versus DR MOHAD SABIR KHAN .....Respondent Through: Mr. Noor Alam, Advocate along with Respondent/ Contemnor in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR % JUDGEMENT (Oral) 1. The present Petition, filed under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, alleges willful disobedience of the Order dated 28.08.20181 passed by this Court in the case, being RFA 169/2016, titled as "Dr. Mohd. Sabir Khan vs. Ramesh Chawla", whereby the Respondent had undertaken to satisfy the decretal amount on or before 28.02.2019. 2. The Respondent/Contemnor is present in person before this Court along with learned counsel appearing on his behalf. Both candidly submit that the undertaking recorded by this Court in the 1 Subject Order Subject Order has not been complied with and that the decretal amount still remains unpaid. 3. This Court had, while issuing Notice in the present Contempt Petition, vide Order dated 04.04.2025, noticed the relevant factual background in the following terms: "ORDER 04.04.2025 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent for having committed contempt of order dated 28.08.2018. 2. The petitioner appearing in person submits that he had filed a suit for recovery under Order XXXVII CPC which was decreed vide judgment dated 24.11.2015 for an amount of Rs.9 Lacs with pendente lite and future interest on the principle amount @12% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of passing of decree. 3. Against the said decree and judgment, the respondent had preferred an Appeal being RFA 169/2016. However, on 28.08.2018, the appellant withdrew the said Appeal and prayed that appellant be granted six months' time to pay the decretal amount. Accordingly, while disposing of the said appeal, as not pressed, this Court had granted time to the respondent to make payment of the decretal amount on or before 28.02.2019. 4. He submits that subsequently, in the disposed of RFA 169/2016 an application was also made by the respondent seeking extension of time. The said application also came to be dismissed vide order dated 08.09.2019. He submits that despite the direction of this Court to the respondent to make payment of decretal amount on or before 28.02.2019, the respondent has not paid any amount to the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that a decree has been obtained by the petitioner on the basis of fraudulent documents. However, this Court does not find favour with the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent inasmuch as in the contempt petition, this Court cannot go beyond the order/judgment of which contempt is alleged. This plea was available to the respondent only before the Appellate Court, but as noted above, the appeal preferred by the respondent was withdrawn vide order dated 28.08.2018. 6. Mr. Gulshan Kumar Malhotra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the address given in the affidavit of the respondent, i.e., 8, Praveen Devi Ashram Complex, Krishna Park, New Delhi-110062 is the correct address of the respondent. On a query posed by the Court he further submits that the mobile number of the respondent is 9953537582. 7. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is prima facie of the view that respondent is guilty of contempt of the order dated 28.08.2018 passed in RFA 169/2016 by this Court. 8. Issue notice to respondent as to why he should not be held guilty of having committed contempt of court under Section 2(b) read with Section 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Court Act. 9. Respondent is directed to remain phy