BIJENDER KUMAR KARHANA THROUGH SPA HOLDER vs HARSH VASHIST & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~49 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 27.02.2025 + CONT.APP.(C) 3/2025 CM APPL. 3965/2025, 3967/2025 BIJENDER KUMAR KARHANA THROUGH SPA HOLDER .....Appellant Through: Mr Jatan Singh, Sr Advocate with Mr Mahender Mishra, Mr Paruv Tyagi, Mr Dharmender Basoya and Ms Vanshika Adhana, Advocates. versus HARSH VASHIST & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr Kirtiman Singh, Sr Advocate with Mr Maulik Khurana, Mr Ranjeev Khatna, Mr Ashish Gupta, Mr Sachin Tanwar, Advocates for R1. Ms Ritu Reniwal SrPC and Mr Mahendra Kumawat, Advocate for R4 & R5. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA VIBHU BAKHRU, J. (ORAL) 1. The appellant has filed the present appeal, inter alia, impugning an order dated 06.11.2024 (hereafter the impugned order) passed by the learned Single Judge in Cont. Cas (C) No.1731/2024 captioned Bijender Kumar Karhana v. Harsh Vashist and Ors. 2. The appellant had filed the said petition alleging wilful disobedience Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CONT.APP.(C) 3/2025 Page 1 of 7 By:TARUN RANA Signing Date:07.03.2025 16:49:36 of the directions issued by the court in terms of the order dated 07.10.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.14034/2024. The learned Single Judge had not accepted that respondent no.1 was required to be proceeded against and, accordingly, dismissed the aforesaid contempt petition. 3. The relevant extracts of the impugned order is set out below: - “5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/MCD has pointed out that it has passed a demolition order in accordance with the undertaking given to this Court. However, the respondent No.1/owner/occupier has assailed the said order before the learned Appellate Tribunal, Municipal Corporation of Delhi [ATMCD] by way of Appeal No. 934/2024, and the learn