Manipur High Court
Kangjam Jayanta Singh vs Lisham Anilkumar Singh And 5 Others on 14 August, 2025
SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL SHARMA Digitally signed by SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL SHARMA
Date: 2025.08.22 17:06:00 +05'30'
Sl. Nos. 6, 5 & 7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
Cont. Cas(C) J2 No. 4 of 2024
Kangjam Jayanta Singh
Petitioner
Vs.
Lisham Anilkumar Singh and 5 others
Respondents
Clubbed with RSA No. 6 of 2024
With MC(RSA) No. 34 of 2024
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. KEMPAIAH SOMASHEKAR
ORDER
14.08.2025 [1] This contempt case has been initiated by the complainant/petitioner for disobedience of the orders rendered by the Executing Court in Execution Case No. 19 of 2022 dated 15.11.2024, the Execution case has been initiated by the decree holder before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Imphal East, Manipur. [2] Heard Mr. M. Rarry, learned senior counsel for the petitioner; Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel; Mr. H. Prabirkumar, learned counsel and Md. Ajmal Hussain, learned counsel for the respondents. [3] In this contempt case, the learned senior counsel Mr. Sapam Biswajit Meitei was also representing the respondents/accused and whereby securing his service. Subsequently, the respondents/accused in this matter have been securing the service of the learned senior counsel namely, Mr. N. Ibotombi.
Page | 1 [4] Wherein the learned senior counsel Mr. N. Ibotombi in this matter submitting relating to the proceedings of RSA No.6 of 2024 has been filed by the appellant and the said RSA proceeding is pending before the appellate court. However, the proceeding in OS No. 5 of 2014 was initiated by the plaintiff against the defendant and wherein the judgment and decree has been rendered relating to the suits and properties depicted therein. Subsequent to rendering of judgment and decree that the aggrieved party has preferred an appeal i.e. RFA No. 11 of 2022 and wherein in the aforesaid RFA proceeding the judgment and decree has been rendered and judgment and decree rendered by the first appellate court the proceeding in RSA No. 6 of 2024 has been filed by the aggrieved party and that RSA proceeding is pending for consideration. However, it is clarified that proceeding in RSA No. 6 of 2024 is filed by the respondent/accused No. 1 to 4 and that the RSA proceeding has been initiated and also pending for consideration of the judgment and decree rendered in RFA No. 11 of 2022. [5] These are all the status which has been submitted by the learned senior counsel Mr. M. Rarry for the complainant/petitioner and similarly, the forceful submission made by the learned senior counsel Mr. N. Ibotombi for the respondents/accused No. 1 to 6. [6] During the pendency of this contempt proceeding, that the learned senior counsel Mr. Sapam Biswajit Meitei had submitted the apology affidavit in all respondents No. 1 to 6 and that affidavits are under consideration. However, in this matter, the learned senior counsel Mr. N. Ibotombi who had thereafter, recorded as the senior counsel for seeking his Page | 2 assistance and the aforesaid learned senior counsel submitting that the apology affidavit filed by the respondents No. 1 to 6 being arrayed as accused has submitted in detail.
[7] On the contrary to the apology affidavit of respondents/accused No. 1 to 6 and the learned senior counsel Mr. M. Rarry has filed some response to the aforesaid apology affidavit dated 15 th July, 2025.
[8] However, keeping in view the submission made by the learned senior counsel Mr. M. Rarry in this matter, it is deemed appropriate to refer the response which has been filed by him in respect of the apology affidavits of the respondents/accused No. 1 to 6, In his response to the aforesaid apology affidavit and wherein the respective respondents individually have taken their contentions separately.
[9] Respondent No. 1/accused has filed an apology affidavit. It is contended that :-
"An affidavit filed by the Respondent No.1 to the contempt petition of petitioner.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:
I, Lisham Anilkumar Singh, aged about 63 years, S/O (L) L. Kullachandra Singh, R/O Wangkhei Thambalkhong, Lisham Leirak, P.O. & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under :-
1. That I am the Respondent No. 1 in the above noted contempt petition. I have perused the application and the Annexure thereof Page | 3 and I have understood the contents thereof. The answers thereto are given in the following paragraph.
2. That the deponent is tendering unconditional apology before this Hon'ble Court. The deponent has high regards for the courts and has never done any act which could lower or undermine the dignity of the Hon'ble Courts.
3. That the above noted contempt petition was filed under section 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 129 and Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Rule 9 of the Contempt of Courts (Manipur High Court) Rules, 2019 for committing contempt of the court orders/judgment and decree dated 21.04.2022 passed in RFA No.11 of 2020 by the Ld.District judge, Imphal East and order dated 05.12.2022 with all subsequent orders passed by the Ld.Court of Civil Judge, Imphal East in Execution Case No.19 of 2022.
FACTS LEADING TO THE FILING OF THE PRESENT CONTEMPT PETITION:
4. That it is respectfully to state that on 18.03.2020, Order of the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Imphal East Manipur passed in Original Suit No.2014 wherein the Hon'ble Court decreed that the Defendants No.1 to 4 (the Respondent herein) shall continue to enjoy the approach road for egress and ingress to his homestead land. Further, the plaintiff, his men and agents are restrained from causing any sort of obstruction in the peaceful enjoyment by the Defendants.
5. That being aggrieved by the order dated 18.03.2020, the petitioner herein filed RFA No.11 of 2020 in the Court of District Judge, Imphal East and on 21.04.2022, the Ld. District Judge, Imphal East passed an order setting aside the Page | 4 decree passed in favour of the respondent herein and retaining the other decisions and reliefs passed by the Ld. Trial court.
In other words, the Defendants No.1 to 4 are not liable to enjoy any approach road at the north eastern boundary of their homestead land towards north touching Lisham Leirak through the land of the Plaintiff in any manner.
6. That the petitioner filed Execution Case No.19 of 2022 in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Imphal East Manipur and on 05.12.2022, the Ld. Court passed an order for execution of the decree passed in O.S No.5 of 2014 and subsequently modified in RFA.No.11 of 2020.
7. That being aggrieved by the order dated 21.04.2022 of the Ld. District Judge, Imphal East, the Respondent preferred RSA No.6 of 2024 in this Hon'ble High Court.
8. That when the aforesaid RSA No.6 of 2024 was taken up on 14.10.2024, the Hon'ble Court suggested to the counsel for the petitioner herein verbally not to disturbed the egress and ingress of the respondent herein during the pendency of the case. However, on 16.10.2024, the petitioner with the support of the Manipur Police personnel in purported compliance of the Ld. Execution Court fenced the only pathway/approach road thereby completely blocking the egress and ingress to the respondent's homestead land by completely ignoring the suggestions made by the Hon'ble High Court.
9. That it is pertinent to mention here that the homestead land of the respondent is landlocked property having no alternative pathway other than the present pathway.
10. That the answering deponent has no intention to disobey the order of the Ld. Executing court and has no intention to Page | 5 scandalise the Hon'ble Court but due to sheer necessity, the deponent and his family made the blunder, being layman who has no idea about the consequences of his conduct and he is repenting for the same. It is further respectfully submitted that the answering deponent is offering a sincere and an unconditional apology to this Hon'ble Court to purge his contempt.
11. That the answering deponent respectfully submitted that he has full faith in the judicial system and holds the Hon'ble Court in very high regards and tender unconditional apology and assures this Hon'ble Court he will never indulge in any activity which will lower the dignity of the Hon'ble Court in future and prays for forgiveness."
[10] Similarly, Respondent No. 2/accused has filed an apology affidavit. It is contended that :-
"An affidavit filed by the Respondent No.2 to the contempt petition of petitioner.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:
I, Lisham (O) Shanti Devi, aged about 52 years, W/O L. Binoy Singh, R/O Wangkhei Thambalkhong, Lisham Leirak, P.O. & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur, presently residing at Kakching Chumnang Leikai Deepa Pareng, PO- Kakching & PS- Kakching, pin no-795103, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under :-
1. That I am the Respondent No. 2 in the above noted contempt petition. I have perused the application and the Annexure thereof Page | 6 and I have understood the contents thereof. The answers thereto are given in the following paragraph.
2. That the deponent is tendering unconditional apology before this Hon'ble Court. The deponent has high regards for the courts and has never done any act which could lower or undermine the dignity of the Hon'ble Courts.
3. That it is respectfully stated on the date of occurrence of the incident i.e on 16.10.2024, I was never present at the place of occurrence when the petitioner and the Manipur Police personnel came to fence the pathway. It is pertinent to mention herein that presently, I am staying at my parental house situated at Kakching as I shifted much before the incident and I was not present physically at the date of occurrence i.e. 16.10.2024. It is further respectfully submitted that I am in the array of the parties in the suit because of my late husband who was a family member of the other respondents and I am facing the litigations unnecessarily.
4. That it is pertinent to mention here that the homestead land of the respondent is landlocked property having no alternative pathway other than the present pathway.
5. That the answering deponent has no intention to disobey the order of the Ld. Executing court and has no intention to scandalise the Hon'ble Court in any manner, even though my name has been dragged unnecessarily by the petitioner. But I am ready to comply with any directions of the Hon'ble Court and it is duty bound for me as a law abiding citizen to obey the directions of this Hon'ble Court.
6. It is further respectfully submitted that the answering deponent is offering a sincere and an unconditional apology to this Hon'ble Court to purge her contempt, if this Hon'ble Court in its wisdom Page | 7 feels that the answering deponent is involve in the said incident directly or indirectly.
7. That the answering deponent respectfully submitted that she has full faith in the judicial system and holds the Hon'ble Court in very high regards and tender unconditional apology and assures this Hon'ble Court she will never indulge in any activity which will lower the dignity of the Hon'ble Court in future and prays for forgiveness."
[11] Similarly, Respondent No. 3/accused has filed an apology affidavit. It is contended that :-
"An affidavit filed by the Respondent No.3 to the contempt petition of petitioner.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:
I, Lisham Subhashini Devi, about 58 years, D/O (L) L. Kullachandra Singh, R/O Wangkhei Thambalkhong, Lisham Leirak, P.O. & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under :-
1. That I am the Respondent No. 3 in the above noted contempt petition. I have perused the application and the Annexure thereof and I have understood the contents thereof.
The answers thereto are given in the following paragraph.
2. That the deponent is tendering unconditional apology before this Hon'ble Court. The deponent has high regards for the courts and has never done any act which could lower or undermine the dignity of the Hon'ble Courts.
3. That the above noted contempt petition was filed under section 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read Page | 8 with Article 129 and Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Rule 9 of the Contempt of Courts (Manipur High Court) Rules, 2019 for committing contempt of the court orders/judgment and decree dated 21.04.2022 passed in RFA No.11 of 2020 by the Ld.District judge, Imphal East and order dated 05.12.2022 with all subsequent orders passed by the Ld.Court of Civil Judge, Imphal East in Execution Case No.19 of 2022.
FACTS LEADING TO THE FILING OF THE PRESENT CONTEMPT PETITION:
4. That it is respectfully to state that on 18.03.2020, the Ld. Civil Judge Senior Division, Imphal East Manipur passed an order in Original Suit No.2014 wherein the Hon'ble Court decreed that the Defendants No.1 to 4 (the Respondent herein) shall continue to enjoy the approach road for egress and ingress to his homestead land. Further, the plaintiff, his men and agents are restrained from causing any sort of obstruction in the peaceful enjoyment by the Defendants.
5. That being aggrieved by the order dated 18.03.2020, the petitioner herein filed RFA No.11 of 2020 in the Court of District Judge, Imphal East and on 21.04.2022, the Ld. District Judge, Imphal East passed an order setting aside the decree passed in favour of the respondent herein and retaining the other decisions and reliefs passed by the Ld. Trial court. In other words, the Defendants No.1 to 4 are not liable to enjoy any approach road at the north eastern boundary of their homestead land towards north touching Lisham Leirak through the land of the Plaintiff in any manner.
Page | 9
6. That the petitioner filed Execution Case No.19 of 2022 in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Imphal East Manipur and on 05.12.2022, the Ld. Court passed an order for execution of the decree passed in O.S No.5 of 2014 and subsequently modified in RFA.No.11 of 2020.
7. That being aggrieved by the order dated 21.04.2022 of the Ld. District Judge, Imphal East, the Respondent preferred RSA No.6 of 2024 in this Hon'ble High Court.
8. That when the aforesaid RSA No.6 of 2024 was taken up on 14.10.2024, the Hon'ble Court suggested to the counsel for the petitioner herein verbally not to disturbed the egress and ingress of the respondent herein during the pendency of the case. However, on 16.10.2024, the petitioner with the support of the Manipur Police personnel in purported compliance of the Ld. Execution Court fenced the only pathway/approach road thereby completely blocking the egress and ingress to the respondent's homestead land by completely ignoring the suggestions made by the Hon'ble High Court.
9. That it is pertinent to mention here that the homestead land of the respondent is landlocked property having no alternative pathway other than the present pathway.
10. That the answering deponent has no intention to disobey the order of the Ld. Executing court and has no intention to scandalise the Hon'ble Court but due to sheer necessity, the deponent and his family made the blunder, being layman who has no idea about the Page | 10 consequences of his conduct and he is repenting for the same. It is further respectfully submitted that the answering deponent is offering a sincere and an unconditional apology to this Hon'ble Court to purge his contempt.
11. That the answering deponent respectfully submitted that he has full faith in the judicial system and holds the Hon'ble Court in very high regards and tender unconditional apology and assures this Hon'ble Court he will never indulge in any activity which will lower the dignity of the Hon'ble Court in future and prays for forgiveness."
[12] Similarly, Respondent No. 4/accused has filed an apology affidavit. It is contended that :-
"An affidavit filed by the Respondent No.4 to the contempt petition of petitioner.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:
I, Lisham Lalit Singh, aged about 75 years, S/O (L) L. Angou Singh, R/O Wangkhei Thambalkhong, Lisham Leirak, P.O. & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under :-
1. That I am the Respondent No. 4 in the above noted contempt petition. I have perused the application and the Annexure thereof and I have understood the contents thereof. The answers thereto are given in the following paragraph.
2. That the deponent is tendering unconditional apology before this Hon'ble Court. The deponent has high regards Page | 11 for the courts and has never done any act which could lower or undermine the dignity of the Hon'ble Courts.
3. That the above noted contempt petition was filed under section 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 129 and Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Rule 9 of the Contempt of Courts (Manipur High Court) Rules, 2019 for committing contempt of the court orders/judgment and decree dated 21.04.2022 passed in RFA No.11 of 2020 by the Ld.District judge, Imphal East and order dated 05.12.2022 with all subsequent orders passed by the Ld.Court of Civil Judge, Imphal East in Execution Case No.19 of 2022.
FACTS LEADING TO THE FILING OF THE PRESENT CONTEMPT PETITION:
4. That it is respectfully to state that on 18.03.2020, the Ld. Civil Judge Senior Division, Imphal East Manipur passed an order in Original Suit No.2014 wherein the Hon'ble Court decreed that the Defendants No.1 to 4 (the Respondent herein) shall continue to enjoy the approach road for egress and ingress to his homestead land. Further, the plaintiff, his men and agents are restrained from causing any sort of obstruction in the peaceful enjoyment by the Defendants.
5. That being aggrieved by the order dated 18.03.2020, the petitioner herein filed RFA No.11 of 2020 in the Court of District Judge, Imphal East and on 21.04.2022, the Ld. District Judge, Imphal East passed an order setting aside the decree passed in favour of the respondent herein and retaining the other decisions and reliefs passed by the Ld. Trial court. In other Page | 12 words, the Defendants No.1 to 4 are not liable to enjoy any approach road at the north eastern boundary of their homestead land towards north touching Lisham Leirak through the land of the Plaintiff in any manner.
6. That the petitioner filed Execution Case No.19 of 2022 in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Imphal East Manipur and on 05.12.2022, the Ld. Court passed an order for execution of the decree passed in O.S No.5 of 2014 and subsequently modified in RFA.No.11 of 2020.
7. That being aggrieved by the order dated 21.04.2022 of the Ld. District Judge, Imphal East, the Respondent preferred RSA No.6 of 2024 in this Hon'ble High Court.
8. That when the aforesaid RSA No.6 of 2024 was taken up on 14.10.2024, the Hon'ble Court suggested to the counsel for the petitioner herein verbally not to disturbed the egress and ingress of the respondent herein during the pendency of the case. However, on 16.10.2024, the petitioner with the support of the Manipur Police personnel in purported compliance of the Ld. Execution Court fenced the only pathway/approach road thereby completely blocking the egress and ingress to the respondent's homestead land by completely ignoring the suggestions made by the Hon'ble High Court.
9. That it is pertinent to mention here that the homestead land of the respondent is landlocked property having no alternative pathway other than the present pathway.
Page | 13
10. That the answering deponent has no intention to disobey the order of the Ld. Executing court and has no intention to scandalise the Hon'ble Court but due to sheer necessity, the deponent and his family made the blunder, being layman who has no idea about the consequences of his conduct and he is repenting for the same. It is further respectfully submitted that the answering deponent is offering a sincere and an unconditional apology to this Hon'ble Court to purge his contempt.
11. That the answering deponent respectfully submitted that he has full faith in the judicial system and holds the Hon'ble Court in very high regards and tender unconditional apology and assures this Hon'ble Court he will never indulge in any activity which will lower the dignity of the Hon'ble Court in future and prays for forgiveness."
[13] Similarly, Respondent No. 5/accused has filed an apology affidavit. It is contended that :-
"An affidavit filed by the Respondent No.5 to the contempt petition of petitioner.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:
I, Lisham Chitreswor Singh, aged about 30 years, S/O. Lisham Anilkumar R/O Wangkhei Thambalkhong, Lisham Leirak, P.O. & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under :-
1. That I am the Respondent No. 5 in the above noted contempt petition. I have perused the application and the Page | 14 Annexure thereof and I have understood the contents thereof. The answers thereto are given in the following paragraph.
2. That the deponent is tendering unconditional apology before this Hon'ble Court. The deponent has high regards for the courts and has never done any act which could lower or undermine the dignity of the Hon'ble Courts.
3. That the above noted contempt petition was filed under section 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 129 and Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Rule 9 of the Contempt of Courts (Manipur High Court) Rules, 2019 for committing contempt of the court orders/judgment and decree dated 21.04.2022 passed in RFA No.11 of 2020 by the Ld.District judge, Imphal East and order dated 05.12.2022 with all subsequent orders passed by the Ld.Court of Civil Judge, Imphal East in Execution Case No.19 of 2022.
FACTS LEADING TO THE FILING OF THE PRESENT CONTEMPT PETITION:
4. That it is respectfully to state that on 18.03.2020, Order of the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Imphal East Manipur passed in Original Suit No.2014 wherein the Hon'ble Court decreed that the Defendants No.1 to 4 (the Respondent herein) shall continue to enjoy the approach road for egress and ingress to his homestead land. Further, the plaintiff, his men and agents are restrained from causing any sort of obstruction in the peaceful enjoyment by the Defendants.
5. That being aggrieved by the order dated 18.03.2020, the petitioner herein filed RFA No.11 of 2020 in the Page | 15 Court of District Judge, Imphal East and on 21.04.2022, the Ld. District Judge, Imphal East passed an order setting aside the decree passed in favour of the respondent herein and retaining the other decisions and reliefs passed by the Ld. Trial court. In other words, the Defendants No.1 to 4 are not liable to enjoy any approach road at the north eastern boundary of their homestead land towards north touching Lisham Leirak through the land of the Plaintiff in any manner.
6. That the petitioner filed Execution Case No.19 of 2022 in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Imphal East Manipur and on 05.12.2022, the Ld. Court passed an order for execution of the decree passed in O.S No.5 of 2014 and subsequently modified in RFA.No.11 of 2020.
7. That being aggrieved by the order dated 21.04.2022 of the Ld. District Judge, Imphal East, the Respondent preferred RSA No.6 of 2024 in this Hon'ble High Court.
8. That when the aforesaid RSA No.6 of 2024 was taken up on 14.10.2024, the Hon'ble Court suggested to the counsel for the petitioner herein verbally not to disturbed the egress and ingress of the respondent herein during the pendency of the case. However, on 16.10.2024, the petitioner with the support of the Manipur Police personnel in purported compliance of the Ld. Execution Court fenced the only pathway/approach road thereby completely blocking the egress and ingress to the respondent's homestead land by completely ignoring the suggestions made by the Hon'ble High Court.
Page | 16
9. That it is pertinent to mention here that the homestead land of the respondent is landlocked property having no alternative pathway other than the present pathway.
10. That the answering deponent has no intention to disobey the order of the Ld. Executing court and has no intention to scandalise the Hon'ble Court but due to sheer necessity, the deponent and his family made the blunder, being layman who has no idea about the consequences of his conduct and he is repenting for the same. It is further respectfully submitted that the answering deponent is offering a sincere and an unconditional apology to this Hon'ble Court to purge his contempt.
11. That the answering deponent respectfully submitted that he has full faith in the judicial system and holds the Hon'ble Court in very high regards and tender unconditional apology and assures this Hon'ble Court he will never indulge in any activity which will lower the dignity of the Hon'ble Court in future and prays for forgiveness."
[14] Similarly, Respondent No. 6/accused has filed an apology affidavit. It is contended that :-
"AN AFFIDAVIT OF APOLOGY FILED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO. 6 TO THE CONTEMPT PETITION FILED ON 02.12.2024 MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:
I, Sarangthem Ongbi Puni Devi, aged about 42 years, w/o Sarangthem Indrakumar Singh R/O Wangkhei Thambalkhong, Lisham Leirak, P.O. & P.S. Porompat, Imphal Page | 17 East District, Manipur, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under :-
1. That I am the Respondent No. 6 in the above noted contempt petition. I have perused the application and the Annexure thereof and I have understood the contents thereof.
2. That I have the utmost respect for this Hon'ble Court and its authority, and I hold the judiciary in the highest esteem. It has never been my intention to disobey, undermine, or show disrespect to the orders, directions, or dignity of this Hon'ble Court.
3. That I have been made aware of the allegations of contempt of court arising from the Court's Judgment/Order/Decree dated 21.04.2022 passed in R.F.A No. 11 of 2020 by the Ld. District Judge, Imphal East and Order dated 05.12.2022 with all subsequent orders passed by the Ld. Civil Judge, Imphal East in Execution Case No. 19 of 2022. Whereas the allegations is that the present Contemnor/Respondent No. 6 is taking part in disobeying the Hon'ble Court's order passed in respect of the Execution proceeding held on 10.08.2002(maybe typographical mistakes), 11.08.2024 and 16.10.2024 in Execution Case No. 19 of 2022 passed by the Hon'ble Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Imphal East by dismantling/destroying/ wall fencing constructed by the Court Bailiff on 16.10.2024. I beg to submit that I have not been notified about the presence of the Court's order and I am not a party to any Court's proceedings and hence prayed for leniency on the ground of mistake of facts.
Page | 18
4. That, the alleged incident was happened in the presence of the police personnel wherein the Respondent No. 6 was randomly present in the spot along with other women members of the community and I have not committed any deliberate and wilful violations of any Court's Order and if committed inadvertently I am seeking unconditional apology before this Hon'ble Court and further undertake that I will not repeat the same. I sincerely submitted that I joined the member of the locality on humanitarian grounds in good faith.
5. That I hereby tender my unconditional and sincere apology to this Hon'ble Court for any act or omission on my part, whether intentional or unintentional, that may have been perceived as disrespectful or in violation of the orders of this Hon'ble Court.
6. That I deeply regret any inconvenience, delay, or disrespect caused to this Hon'ble Court, the learned Petitioner, or any other party involved due to my actions/inactions. I humbly submit that such act/omission was not deliberate and was due to ignorance of facts and was part among the members of the locality randomly and on humanitarian grounds.
7. That I undertake to fully comply with the orders and directions of this Hon'ble Court henceforth and to ensure that no such incident occurs in the future.
8. That I respectfully pray to this Hon'ble Court to graciously accept my unconditional apology and to condone any act or omission on my part that may have amounted to contempt of court. I further pray for the Page | 19 dismissal of the contempt proceedings against me, as I assure this Hon'ble Court of my unwavering respect and compliance in the future.
9. That the contents of this affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge and belief, and no material facts have been concealed therefrom."
[15] On this premises only, the learned senior counsel Mr. M. Rarry in this matter submitted that though the apology affidavit has filed by the respondents/accused No. 1 to 6, but the judgment and decree has been rendered by the court below in OS No. 5 of 2014 and subsequently, rendering the judgment and decree that the same has been challenged before the first appellate court in RFA No. 11 of 2022 and subsequent to rendering the judgment and decree the proceeding in RSA No. 6 of 2024 has been preferred and the same is pending for consideration. [16] However, the learned senior counsel Mr. M. Rarry in this matter submitting that even though respondent/accused No. 1 to 6 have filed affidavit in terms of apology affidavit and the respondents/accused No. 1 to 6 have removed the fencing which was put up as in pursuance of the order passed by the Executing Court in Execution Case No. 19 of 2022. [17] On this premises only that the respondents/accused are not deserving for even acceptance of apology affidavit for seeking some punitive action against them.
[18] On the contrary, the learned senior counsel Mr. N. Ibotombi for the respondent/accused No. 1 to 6 and whereby he has taken the Page | 20 contention in respect of the affidavit individually filed by the respondents/accused No. 1 to 6.
[19] The respondents No. 1 to 6/accused have made their contentions individually which is stated supra. [20] On this apology affidavit as individually filed by the respondent/accused No. 1 to 6 have been submitted that apology affidavit to be accepted and to close the contempt proceeding. This submission which is made by the learned senior counsel Mr. N. Ibotombi has been taken on record.
[21] Whereas, the learned senior counsel in this matter submitting in further that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a proceeding in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1176-1178 of 2016 in SLP (Criminal) No. 8078-8080 of 2016, between Lomesh Vidya Sagar Vs. Court on its own motion, Punjab and Haryana High Court, at Chandigarh, through its Registrar General. The appellant is aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court whereby he has been convicted under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and imposition of penalty to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) in all the three cases. It is further observed that having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and taking note of the apologetic stand of the appellant and since appellant had tendered unconditional and unqualified apology, we are of the considered view that the interest of justice would be served if the conviction as also the penalty be set aside. Ordered accordingly.
Page | 21 [22] This judgment has been facilitated by the learned senior counsel Mr. N. Ibotombi in this contempt proceeding and also on behalf of the respondents/accused No. 1 to 6.
[23] Apart from that, the aforesaid senior counsel has facilitated the judgment and order in the case of Yatin Narendra Oza Vs. Khemchand Rajaram Koshti and others reported in (2016) 9 SCC
343. In this judgment also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India addressed the issues as well as the scope of apology in contempt of Courts. Contempt by advocate - affidavit filed by the petitioner, in addition to affidavit filed on 25.08.2016 reiterating tendering of unconditional apology and undertaking that he shall neither speak on subject in issue in public, except in court proceedings nor to print media nor give any interview or speak in electronic media on subject. The aforesaid observation has been made in Para 9-11, referring to Section 2(c) and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
[24] On these two reliances have been facilitated by the learned senior counsel Mr. N. Ibotombi and wherein the said counsel submitted that apology affidavit filed by the respondents/accused No. 1 to 6 and that apology stand taken by them be considered and to proceed to pass lenient order against him and even though removal of the fencing which was put up in pursuance of the order of the Executing Court which has been stated supra.
[25] Whereas, the learned senior counsel Mr. M. Rarry in this matter relating to the issues in between the complainant/petitioner against Page | 22 the respondents/accused by facilitating the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari Vs. Hiralal Somabhai Contractor (Deceased) represented by LRs and others reported in (2023) 17 SCC 545. In this judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had addressed the issues of Contempt of Courts - Civil Contempt - Willful disobedience/contumacious conduct- What is "willful disobedience". Several judgments have been perused by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India but the word expression, "willful" means act or omission which is done voluntarily or intentionally and with specific intent to do something which law forbids or with specific intent to fail to do something law requires to be done, that is to say with bad purpose either to disobey or to disregard law- it signifies a deliberate action done with evil intent or with a bad motive or purpose and the same has been addressed in detail in para 49 and para 55.
[26] However, keeping in view the submission made by the learned senior counsel for the complainant/petitioner and equally the learned senior counsel for the respondent/accused that in the aforesaid judgment which has been facilitated by the learned senior counsel Mr. M. Rarry and therefore, it is relevant to refer para No. 114 wherein it is stated that in the facts of the case, we are convinced that although the appellants might have tendered the apology before the High Court in the first instance, yet such apology does not deserve to be accepted and was rightly not accepted by the High Court. It was nothing but a gamble on the part of the appellants. It is a lame excuse on their part to say that they were left with no choice Page | 23 but to execute the sale deeds. They have also highlighted few circumstances in this regard. However, we are not at all convinced with any such explanations offered by the appellants. They took a calculated risk to transfer the properties and pocketed the sale consideration. If there was any impending urgency to execute the sale deeds, they could have come to the High Court and should have obtained appropriate clarification or permission in that regard. This is the reason why we say that the appellants with a view to gain wrongfully gambled in the hope that ultimately, they would get away by tendering an apology. This is the reason why such fake apologies should not be accepted by the court and allow a person who has no regard for the Majesty of law to get away from the legal consequences. There is no occasion for us to show any compassion as contempt has been committed and proved beyond reasonable doubt and the effect of this contempt has been felt on the Majesty of the High Court. The litigating public cannot be encouraged that such a situation can continue or the court will not rise to the occasion to book people violating its orders. The law is very clear that the court should not get compassionate and dilute an indictment and not follow it with conviction. The fact that the appellants have committed contempt is not in doubt. The law enjoins that a punishment must follow. However, the learned senior counsel Mr. M. Rarry in the aforesaid judgment he has referred in para No. 86 and 106 which reads as follows :-
"86. This Court in DDA v. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd. and Another reported in (1996) 4 SCC 622, held that the legal Page | 24 consequences of what has been done in breach of or in violation of the order of stay or injunction should be undone and the parties could be put back to the same position as they stood immediately prior to such order of stay or injunction to not let the defaulting party enjoy any undue advantage. This Court while relying upon cases decided by various High Courts held as under:
"The contemner should not be allowed to enjoy or retain the fruits of his contempt * * *
18. The above principle has been applied even in the case of violation of orders of injunction issued by civil courts. In Clarke v. Chadburn [(1985) 1 WLR 78] Sir Robert Megarry V-C observed: (WLR pp. 80-81) "I need not cite authority for the proposition that it is of high importance that orders of the court should be obeyed. Wilful disobedience to an order of the court is punishable as a contempt of court, and I feel no doubt that such disobedience may properly be described as being illegal. If by such disobedience the persons enjoined claim that they have validly effected some change in the rights and liabilities of others, I cannot see why it should be said that although they are liable to penalties for contempt of court for doing what they did, nevertheless those acts were validly done. Of course, if an act is done, it is not undone merely by pointing out that it was done in breach of the law. If a meeting is held in breach of an injunction, it cannot be said that the meeting has not been held. But the legal consequences of what has been done in breach of the law may plainly be very much affected by the illegality. It seems to me on principle that Page | 25 those who defy a prohibition ought not to be able to claim that the fruits of their defiance are good, and not tainted by the illegality that produced them."
19. To the same effect are the decisions of the Madras and Calcutta High Courts in Century Flour Mills Ltd. v. S. Suppiah [AIR 1975 Mad 270 ] and Sujit Pal v. Prabir Kumar Sun [AIR 1986 Cal 220]. In Century Flour Mills Ltd. v. S. Suppiah [AIR 1975 Mad 270 : (1975) 2 MLJ 54] it was held by a Full Bench of the Madras High Court that where an act is done in violation of an order of stay or injunction, it is the duty of the court, as a policy, to set the wrong right and not allow the perpetuation of the wrongdoing. The inherent power of the court, it was held, is not only available in such a case, but it is bound to exercise it to undo the wrong in the interest of justice. That was a case where a meeting was held contrary to an order of injunction. The Court refused to recognise that the holding of the meeting is a legal one. It put back the parties in the same position as they stood immediately prior to the service of the interim order.
20. In Sujit Pal [AIR 1986 Cal 220] a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court has taken the same view. There, the defendant forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff in violation of the order of injunction and took possession of the property. The Court directed the restoration of possession to the plaintiff with the aid of police. The Court observed that no technicality can prevent the court from doing justice in exercise of its inherent powers. It held that the object of Rule 2-A of Order 39 will be fulfilled only where such mandatory direction is given for Page | 26 restoration of possession to the aggrieved party. This was necessary, it observed, to prevent the abuse of process of law.
21. There is no doubt that this salutary rule has to be applied and given effect to by this Court, if necessary, by overruling any procedural or other technical objections. Article 129 is a constitutional power and when exercised in tandem with Article 142, all such objections should give way. The court must ensure full justice between the parties before it." (emphasis supplied) .............................................. ............................................... ...............................................
106. We wonder what could be the ultimate outcome if we accept the apology and allow the appellants to go scot-free. First, they would have to face no legal consequences for the alleged act of contempt and secondly, would continue to enjoy or retain the fruits of their contempt. We say so because they have already pocketed a sizeable amount towards the sale consideration obtained from the purchasers." [27] Keeping in view para No. 86 and 106 of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court of India it is required to looking into disobedience of the orders rendered by the Executing Court in respect of that orders but removing the fencing putting around in pursuance of the order. These are all forceful submissions made by the learned senior counsel Mr. M. Rarry in this matter.
[28] However, the plaintiff and defendant in the aforesaid original suit No. 5 of 2014 and thereby rendering a judgment and decree has been Page | 27 challenged before the Regular First Appellate Court wherein the judgment and decree again has been rendered and thereafter, again judgment and decree by the Regular First Appellate Court, the RSA proceeding has been initiated. However, it is clarified that RSA No. 6 of 2024 is pending for consideration of issues in between the appellant and the respondent. [29] It is very much required to be clarified that plaintiff and the defendant in the aforesaid original suit have been the appellant and the respondent in RSA proceeding and inclusive of the RSA No. 6 of 2024 and more so, decree holder and judgment debtor in Execution Case No. 19 of 2022 the plaintiff and the defendants are relatives to each other but there was an issue in between the plaintiff and the defendant in the aforesaid original suit and wherein it is based on evidence taken by them whereby judgment and decree has been rendered and subsequently, judgment and decree has been challenged by the aggrieved person by approaching the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court also confirmed the judgment and decree and thereafter the proceeding in RSA No. 6 of 2024 is pending for consideration of judgment and decree rendered by the Regular First Appellate Court.
[30] There is no dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant in the rank of the parties in Original Suit No. 5 of 2014 and even there is no dispute in between the appellant and the respondents in the rank of the parties and more so, they are the distant relatives but there shall be issues in respect of the pathway in terms of the exemplary right but in pursuance of order rendered by the Executing Court that the respondents/accused Page | 28 alleged to removal of the fencing and the same has been depicted even subjected to photos which have been found place and also facilitated by the learned senior counsel Mr. M. Rarry. However, in this contempt proceeding, the learned senior counsel Mr. N. Ibotombi had submitting for acceptance of the apology affidavit. It is the stands of the respondents No. 1 to 6 being arrayed as accused and when once the persons in the rank of the respondents/accused have been submitting the apologetic affidavit as their stands for remorse it is the domain of the court to look into the contents of the affidavits as filed by the respondents/accused No. 1 to 6 and therefore, it is deemed it appropriate and also keeping in view the reformative theory it required to be held penalty against the respondents/accused No. 1 to 6 at Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each. It is worked out as Rs. 60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand) and that amount shall be deposited before the Registrar General of the High Court of Manipur within a period of 3 (three) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. [31] The proceeding in RSA No. 6 of 2024 is pending for addressing the issues in between the appellant and the respondents in respect of the judgment and decree rendered by the First Appellate Court in RFA No. 11 of 2020.
[32] Accordingly, the proceeding in Contempt Case(C) J2 No. 4 of 2024 is hereby disposed of.
[33] Whereas, the proceeding in RSA No. 6 of 2024 is pending and so also the proceeding in MC(RSA) No. 34 of 2024 for stay. However, in a given peculiar facts and circumstances of the case are concerned, it is Page | 29 deemed appropriate that Registry be directed to list the proceeding in RSA No. 6 of 2024 and inclusive of the proceeding in MC(RSA) No. 34 of 2024 before the appropriate Bench having the roster to deal the matters, in accordance with law.
[34] However, the respondents No. 1 to 6 shall deposit the penalty amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each and if not deposited, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 (two) months. Accordingly ordered. Consequently, this contempt proceeding is hereby closed.
CHIEF JUSTICE Sushil Page | 30