Ramesh Chawla vs Dr Mohad Sabir Khan
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~24
* 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
1
dated 28.08.2018 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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:28.07.2026
15:47:44
CONT.CAS(C) 532/2019 Page 1 of 9
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:28.07.2026
15:47:44
CONT.CAS(C) 532/2019 Page 2 of 9
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 physically present in
Court on the next date of hearing.
10. List on 07.05.2025.”
4. At this juncture, this Court specifically queried the Respondent
as to why the undertaking recorded by this Court in Subject Order had
not been honored. In response, both, the Respondent as well as his
learned counsel reiterated their contention that the decree sought to be
enforced had been obtained by practicing fraud, and on the basis of
fraudulent documents.
5. Per contra , learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Petitioner submits that the undertaking recorded by this Court dates
back to 28.08.2018 and has remained uncompiled with for over seven
years.
6. It is further submitted that the only defense consistently sought
to be raised by the Respondent is that the decree was allegedly
obtained by fraud, a contention which is wholly impermissible in
contempt proceedings.
7. Learned counsel further submits that even the Reply filed by the
Respondent on 02.04.2025 does not disclose any financial inability to
comply with the undertaking. On the contrary, the sole defense taken
therein pertains to the alleged fraud in obtaining the decree.
8. This Court has considered the submissions advanced on behalf
of the parties.
9. This Court takes note of the fact that the undertaking recorded
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:28.07.2026
15:47:44
CONT.CAS(C) 532/2019 Page 3 of 9
by this Court as reflected in the Subject Order has, admittedly, not
been complied with till date. Equally, no legally sustainable
explanation has been furnished by the Respondent for such non-
compliance.
10. The sole defense sought to be urged pertains exclusively to the
correctness of the decree and alleged fraud played upon by the
Petitioner upon the Respondent/Contemnor to obtain the said decree.
11. The aforesaid submission cannot detain this Court for long. As
already observed by this Court in the Order dated 04.04.2025, the
validity of the decree cannot be gone into while exercising contempt
jurisdiction. The Respondent/Contemnor had ample opportunity to
assail the decree in appropriate proceedings.
12. The Appeal preferred by him came to be withdrawn on
28.08.2018 after seeking time to satisfy the decretal amount, and
subsequently, an Application seeking extension of time was also
declined vide Order dated 08.04.2019.
13. The contention of the Respondent/Contemnor and his counsel is
that the Respondent/Contemnor has already undergone simple
imprisonment of two months in terms of Order dated 14.05.2025
passed by the Executing Court and that this Court need not proceed to
punish the Respondent/Contemnor any further.
14. This Court takes note that contempt proceedings are distinct
from execution proceedings and the two cannot be conflated. This is
in consonance with the various Judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court whereby the same has been succinctly observed, inter alia , in
2
Bank of Baroda vs. Sadruddin Hasan Daya & Anr . . The relevant
paragraph thereof, being Paragraph No. 14, is reproduced herein under
2
(2004) 1 SCC 360
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:28.07.2026
15:47:44
CONT.CAS(C) 532/2019 Page 4 of 9
for ready reference:
“ 14. The respondents had filed consent terms in this Court but the
same contained an undertaking that they would not alienate,
encumber or charge the properties to anyone until the decree was
satisfied. Acting upon this undertaking the consent terms, this
Court passed the decree whereunder the respondents (defendants)
were given the facility of depositing the amount in eight quarterly
instalments commencing from 1-11-1999 to 1-8-2001. This Court,
therefore, put its imprimatur upon the consent terms and made it a
decree of the court. The violation or breach of the undertaking
which became part of the decree of the court certainly amounts to
contempt of court, irrespective of the fact that it is open to the
decree-holder to execute the decree. Contempt is a matter between
the court and the alleged contemner and is not affected in any
manner by the rights or obligations of the parties to the litigation
inter se.”
(Emphasis supplied)
15. Evidently, the Respondent/Contemnor has failed to honor the
undertaking furnished to this Court. The Reply filed in the present
contempt proceedings also fails to inspire confidence of this Court
insofar as it does not disclose any bona fide or legally sustainable
explanation for such non-compliance. The only defense consistently
sought to be urged is that the decree sought to be enforced was
obtained by fraud. Significantly, even upon a specific query put by
this Court to the Respondent/Contemnor, appearing in person, no
explanation other than the aforesaid plea was forthcoming.
16. As already noticed in the Orders passed by this Court, the
aforesaid contention cannot constitute a valid basis for not complying
with the undertaking furnished to this Court. In any event, this
contention was raised in the Appeal, which has since been rejected
and the Executing Court has also proceeded against the
Respondent/Contemnor.
17. At this stage, this Court also considers it appropriate to extract
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:28.07.2026
15:47:44
CONT.CAS(C) 532/2019 Page 5 of 9
the Written Submissions filed by the Respondent/Contemnor, as late
as on 14.10.2025. The same reads as follows:
“ WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE
RESPONDENT (JD).
1. That the present contempt petition has been filed by the
Decree Holder (DH) alleging non-compliance of the decree/order
dated 24.11.2015 passed by the learned Sh. Devender Kumar
Jangala Tis Hazari court which itself is now being challenged after
getting actual documents from sub registrar office as the present
decree has been obtained by fraud using absolutely forged
documents.
2. That the answering Respondent (JD) most respectfully
submits that he has already undergone civil imprisonment for 60
days as per order dated 24.05.2025 passed by the learned
Executing Court. The said period has been completed in full
compliance with law.
3. “That in view of the settled law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, once a judgment-debtor has undergone the
maximum permissible period of civil imprisonment under Order 21
Rule 3 2( 1) & (3) read with Section 51 (c) CPC, no further custody
or punitive action can be ordered in contempt jurisdiction for the
same alleged disobedience.”
4. Reliance is placed upon the following binding precedents:
(i) Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang, (2006) 11 SCC 114 -
holding that contempt jurisdiction cannot be exercised to
enforce a decree beyond the limits of the Civil Procedure
Code.
(ii) Rama Dayal Markarha v. State of M.P., AIR 1978 SC 921 -
where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the period of
imprisonment under civil process is limited and cannot be
repeatedly invoked for the same cause.
(iii) T. Sudhakar Prasad v. Govt. of A.P., (2001) 1 SCC
516- reiterating that contempt jurisdiction cannot be invoked
as a substitute for execution.
5. That the decree/order in question was obtained by playing
fraud upon the trial court by the Decree Holder by using forged and
fabricated documents, which vitiates the entire judicial process. It
is well-settled that "Fraud vitiates all judicial acts and orders"-
(A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P., (2007) 4 SCC 221).
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:28.07.2026
15:47:44
CONT.CAS(C) 532/2019 Page 6 of 9
6. That the Respondent shall initiate appropriate proceedings
before the Hon'ble High court for setting aside the said fraudulent
decree and for taking action against the DH for forgery and
perjury.
7. That the contempt jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court cannot
be used to re-punish or extend imprisonment for the same alleged
disobedience, particularly when the Respondent has already
suffered 60 days imprisonment as per the trial court's order.
8. That the Respondent has at no stage willfully disobeyed any
lawful order of the court. His actions have been bona fide and
based on the belief that the decree itself is void and unenforceable
being obtained by fraud.
9. That in the facts and circumstances, continuation of
contempt proceedings or imposition of any further punishment
would amount to double jeopardy and abuse of process, contrary to
the scheme of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
PRAYER
In view of the foregoing, it is most respectfully prayed that this
Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
a) Take on record this written submission;
b) Hold that no further imprisonment or coercive action is
permissible against the Respondent (JD) in view of his having
already undergone 60 days' civil custody;
c) Take judicial notice of the prima facie fraud played by the
Decree Holder and direct appropriate inquiry after calling the LCR
or permit the Respondent to pursue appropriate remedy before the
competent forum; and
d) Pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”
18. As is apparent, the new story and contention sought to be raised
by the Respondent/Contemnor is based upon the Order of the learned
Executing Court dated 15.12.2025. Learned counsel now seeks to
contend, based on the aforesaid Order, that there is no willful default
since the Respondent/Contemnor did not have the financial
wherewithal to satisfy the decretal amount and that the learned
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:28.07.2026
15:47:44
CONT.CAS(C) 532/2019 Page 7 of 9
Executing Court has also rendered a finding that the Petitioner was
unable to establish that the Respondent/Contemnor possessed the
means to satisfy the decree. The Respondent/Contemnor also relies on
an Affidavit filed before the learned Executing Court to the effect that
the Respondent/Contemnor did not have the financial wherewithal to
pay the decretal amount.
19. It is apparent that throughout the course of the present contempt
proceedings, until the Order dated 15.12.2025 came to be passed, no
plea whatsoever was raised regarding the Respondent/Contemnor’s
alleged inability to satisfy the decretal amount. Equally, the contention
that the Respondent/Contemnor was a non-practicing doctor never
formed part of the pleadings before this Court. Significantly, even the
written submissions filed on 14.10.2025, accompanied by the
Affidavit of the Respondent/Contemnor, are completely silent on the
aspects of capacity to pay and alleged non-employment/practice.
20. This Court, vide Order dated 08.04.2019, has already
disbelieved the Respondent/Contemnor’s plea that he lacked the
financial capacity to satisfy the decretal amount.
21. This Court also finds the contention that the
Respondent/Contemnor, despite being a medical graduate, has not
been practicing as a doctor, difficult to accept. The said contention
assumes greater significance in view of the admitted position that the
Respondent/Contemnor was fully conscious of the decree passed
against him and had voluntarily furnished an undertaking to this Court
to satisfy the decretal amount. Despite the same, no material has been
placed on record to demonstrate that the Respondent/Contemnor made
any bona fide effort either to arrange the requisite funds or to
otherwise honor the undertaking furnished to this Court despite being
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:28.07.2026
15:47:44
CONT.CAS(C) 532/2019 Page 8 of 9
fully physically and mentally able to do so. Furthermore, the
Respondent/Contemnor was also well dressed and appeared none the
worse for wear, clearly indicating that the factual position appeared to
be in contrast to the submission.
22. Clearly, the Respondent/Contemnor, by virtue of different
stands taken before this Court and before the Executing Court, is
playing ducks and drakes with the Court.
23. For all the above reasons, this Court holds the
Respondent/Contemnor guilty of civil contempt. In exercise of powers
under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the
Respondent is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period
of two (02) months and to pay a fine of ₹2,000/-.
24. In default of payment of the fine within a period of two (02)
weeks from today, the Respondent shall further undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of seven (07) days.
25. The present Petition, along with all pending Application(s), if
any, stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J
JULY 24, 2026/ nd/DJ
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:28.07.2026
15:47:44
CONT.CAS(C) 532/2019 Page 9 of 9