Sri Shankar Gouda Lingana Gouda Patil vs Mr R Govindappa S/O Sri. Mavalli Ramaiah on 19 August, 2009

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Shankar Gouda Lingana Gouda Patil vs Mr R Govindappa S/O Sri. Mavalli Ramaiah on 19 August, 2009

Bench: K.Bhakthavatsala

CCC(Cr§).5x'20U9

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 19'"? DAY OF AUGUST 2009

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GoPALAGo'$§B.A~a:VV: "  A

AND   ~-

THE HONBLE DR. JUSTICE K. B't1Ai§ij*HAVAi*s,§LA"

CONTEMPT OF COURT CAS:ﬁ'-{VCRLA..) No'.:5j2Q09"'  
BETWEEN A A :

Sri Shankargouda,

Lingana Gouda Patil,

S/0 Late Sri Linganagowda, V  ._ 
Age: 49 years,  A   =:   A A 
No.6/3, 1st Floor, 2 51 " '   
"ChandaVan", 1'  

5*' Main, V ____  

Kumaraparkfwestg A. . _

Bangalore--56__O 02'O_ 

Rep. by hiS'i30wer'4i)fV.Att01;ne.3'k He-lder,
Sari. Babuv. ~A},D}_1ammana*gj...V_ _____ H . Complainant

(By Srj'1'viI__G Law Firm, Adv., for complainant}

 AND! '-- 

 1. Mr. R Govfndappa,

1. .. Lo' sri Mav"a..115'i-Ramaiah,

,  ye4ars,"
 "--,N0.57_, 'Nbethaji Circle,
 to Srinivasa Kaiyana Mantappa,

  'Wiviathikere,
.  '  B'arigaIore»560 054.



l~J

CCC(Crl).5.«-"2(}(}9

2. Sri B M Urnesh,
S/o Mahadevappa,
Age: 33 years,

Residing at No.295,

13' ﬂoor,

Anandageri Extension,

Hebbal, -.   
BangaIore--560 O24.    & Accused_ V 

(By Sri K Krishnaswamy, Adv., for A-1)

This Contempt of Court Case (CrI.}_is filedéiundeif Section
15(1)(b) r/W Section 2(c) of ,-the CQn'tenﬂ'1'ptu"Of Courts Act, 1971,
praying to initiate contempt ..of~co1--'_1rt,pfoceed'ings under Section
15(1)(b) r/W Section 2(c) of the C0nt'en3;p?c of tCoui"t.s Act, 1971 and
Punish the respondentﬁ, '  V   -.

This case comsingeoihi {of-.Or€dei;s,.'the"s'amei having been heard and reserved for p1"ono_un.cerne.nt_,,of.Orders, Bhakthavatsaia, J., made the following': .;i_ ~ > V The complainant/defendant in O S No.14}?/2006 on the file o-fiicivii,Jud:ge.--.'(sr;'i- Divn.)iatW£i)vevanaha11i ( Old No.462/2005 on the file 4{Sr_.v:i_Divn.), Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore) O on the ﬁie of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) at _._i.i'_§§.eVanaha11i," filed the present complaint under Section Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, (in n 'the Act') against the accused No.1/Sri R Govindappa and L tn CCC(Crl}.5:'2009 accused No.2/B M Umesh, alleged power of attorney holder of accused No.1, praying to initiate contempt proceedings aga~in'st_i'che accused for the offence under Section 2(c) of the Act.

2. The brief facts of the case leading to _ti'1cv-- Contempt Petition may be stated as under:

The accused No.1 filed a suit the file of Civil Judge (Sr. DiVn.), flangalore, against the cornpiainant he is the absolute owner and direct the defendant/toiwiiacateWand hand over vacant possession and also declare that the sale deeds datedanid executed by Sri Prabhudev 3-."l'Soingashel{ihariiand Sornashekhar in favour of the defeindangti are not binding on the plaintiff, and grant _i"~such other reliefs."

.33.

{fiI7C{C§1f,:, §f'3.§}Q§ After the Court ~::af Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) was €:sta§;§1i;*-§;e§I'.a.i Devanahaiii, the suit was trmzsferreti ts the Ceurt,.-- v%he:§§' "a1fé'3 I13giSte2'e€i as O S Ne.14T£?/2006, _ M _ _V The defendantjcomplaimani c:1i€:ré§3 a,;f:¢:}¢s13:3;n<}€A.';;z1d'=€§3:§ai,_;;zrrVi apﬁiicatian. {E.A«~§V§ Elﬁdﬁi' Grder 2?' Eéluéﬁ §;3.V{3}' £E1}d {:3}' §3§.'° £9 rétjeci the p12.»2i:¢.1t, Lﬁarned cm"; g§:::i§é':=;, ;it>;;r <;:rd.é:..d :-zégézi i2;;?;.i}.2{}{3é, aﬂawsé E.A~»i§f 3.11:2 rejected '={;zia§3f:if 0:: 't§:;u:% Vg;aa;;1:2;;d tﬁaiv there was :19 cause sf aciiers, and the s11éTt_1?v'%%iS §a1---z?ﬁ§:ii -- i;~:';{isr Misc. mama F1b{:ﬁ'I£;i0n Aggg, .:I§t:*'_E'3:'*:}::s ACE azgzcé. Kamgataka. Laﬁii Revenue f§C§. *E£ﬁ'iiZ€1'V ..-2 Ma} and {ii} £31" {I1 P C. it is €312? €386 6f the C(.".IVVIVf'_13;§_)V¢'}'.a;7L%'.?.é.'3':§Vﬁi§é§.g%§}€f aetcuﬁsé N01 E fﬁari aiiieéher séjzéi sf; {1} S ;x;;f¢o};4?:%;20é.3.. §gn gag: ﬁes: 9% <:m:; »}u{§gr: (J:-. _:_>~;m;;; at §§v%§:1é:.i%é;?i, his §}Q*QV?€:§' {Eif 8;ﬁ.{}I'i1€'.'j{ haééﬁrf 3 Pas? Eimizsh {E1356-i:i::{'¥eVz* as accugﬁd S352} against Q16 césmgsiaimani iésr 131$ 'gsfﬁiiﬁf of psjrzgénanent ifljliiliitiﬁil with rzzfemrzace 13:; the sszma _ »_ 8:ai,'=jsC%, m::a;% gm ii} 3 %~§Q.4é2;20e§ gum-s §\e?g.§41'?;'2§8é}., '§'he éntemti appﬁamxgcﬁ %_':3m't::gh b;i$ pmgzer 8%' zattamay hﬁidareﬁ' ':1. Bhammagzagi axad ifﬁééd '%ﬁ£{'i?.§L8}j§ s;ia%,€m.€r:*§i mad 3;:

E>§a§;}3§_i;:_:rf?;t§s:):} under {§:*é€:1' '2' E316; *5; 11(3) and {$1} rjw S€{iﬁQ3f% E3} Bf CCC(Cr§ ).5;-'Z009 C P C, praying to reject the plaint. The trial Court, by its__order dated 20.4.2009, allowed the application (l.A-l) filed unde.if"()ir_"d_erVv7 Rules 11(a) and (d) of c P c and rejected the piamt-3.£el1{feegintfef'~ cause of action. _ The present Contempt Petition came to during the pendency of the suit in Oj_S«-.l§Io.4;f3/20080;';0ll The case of the complainant islvltlplat tho'u"gh the suit filed by accused No.1 was dismissed}ﬁ.l_ing_7anoitE1ersuit withlireference to the same subject matter in O amounting to abuse of ther*cifo're the accused No.1--the plaintiff angighis :at1iorn:ey£__lholder viz., accused No.2 have committed o££en'ee_e_em,der of the Act.

_ Onppservice of notice, accused No.1 entered appearance and that he ﬁled suit in o s No. 1417/2006 on the file of _Civi-1 Alfud-gle'v{*Sr. Divn.) at Devanahalli and the same was V'1'd'ismissed««..by rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rules 11(a) and (d) 0 AAC_by..ovrder dated 22.9.2006 and he has not challenged the 'sainel.--.. 0' CCC{Cr|).5./2009 It is averred in para--4 of the affidavit that he gﬁi-ed any suit before the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) at Devanaiiiaiigii ~ did not authorise any person to file the _s.u.it__in ii" and he does not know 8 M Umesh, and, proceedings as against him.

The original records in'"Q_ s No.'4'7s'g':i0o.8 onithge 'file of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) at Devanahalii v.&ei'e' Notice sent" ur1--served on the ground that he address as furnished in the mernoranduzii of': NBW was issued to the accused No.2ii"out the unmexecuted for Want of correct address. the order dated 25.6.2009, notice was Sridhar Murthy, on the ground that heiiiir:.ais.._r-tiiedt"*«;joxi}e~ri}for accused No.2 in o s No.473/2008. i*"Summohg_ issuedﬂto the Advocate returned tin-served for want of address. On 13.7.2009, learned Counsel for the i'---.co-rriipigainairit was directed to furnish enroiment registration ':.inun1bei' and address of Te Advocate. Hand summons to Sri K L\.

{'C{7{_{7r}}.5f2§*C§9 Sririhar M:,1ri.hy taken by 1116 Counsel for the cempiainaziéfis not yet retumeri and the ]30{iC€.'f sent by RPAD to 835:; K is retmned uxrsexved with an €3I1C101'S€3fI}€I1t "ﬁe .s1;§:}i'p¢r:§§5:}f' , O13. '24.'7.20()9, Counsel for the §:'o11i;:-}ainaIﬁ.".~_ §:ie'id" stating that the mmzmem rsQ.2Va$'2/20o2---- ._me31%:;ia£':;-gi the vakalath ﬂied by K Smldharﬁ §e'£:;rt}1y*iii '('i}:'f§u§'€o.,4?3'12'i§GSve:1 the fﬁa cf Civii Judge (Jr. Diva) 2§iVV:i$'V,ﬁ1x:n*!;i::::1ed as E? 3.? Meenakshi, daughiexb ffyf. $3, Ienraﬁmmzt 2111m1:>&r menfiened thé G S §'€e.4'?3 ,1 ESQS ésss 1m:

$311; wiih tiizj §§:"---.._;<f5 :i;£§§1a§:33:21*t%1}'$ i{3;€;<1';1?f£jy* sf SEE K $fi&hgn*m.1:1'5?E_1y <:Vc>'a::E;:§V ":30: he maﬁa {:21}: amd C{}E"i"€£_'.i a€§.drf:$s of *V'¢1<::éé1is§;;%{i'L"§'é'€;.E:5E ':»2l§:3':~:3ﬁa4: f:3fi§iS%:@€i. Ths campiajzxazajiz ?Li§'{€ii"}}--' faiéed Etc; stggas ";::_s ;:7sg::é:1fs<€::"3_:.~ N6. :2. 3A.~.__fE%€ax{,%'_ §'..--:§1e 1€3rI2é3& {faunas} far 1:113 Crcémpiaizzamt 311$ j -a.é:_<é'¢;sed E'-§€;., 3 an the paint af mai:};tai11abi§j.%y cf the Ceniiampi igearmjii {';:3u.::s€1 for the Camphainant sub.m37ﬁ;-S €1,121': {ha VT ﬁééwgiﬁ Sui: fiiéii 'ﬁfe; ﬁCC'ETi;'§€f} Etifvugh 3.('ﬁ£3'i}S€{i §'~§'<:x2 is :--:'{>u$e Gf CCC{{"§'£f:.§f2€}{39 pmcess of iaw and plajzsd fraud an the Court and therefqm the E3.{"1C11S€d have committed {ha eﬂance undm" S€C{iGI1 12(9) of it is furthézr submitted that Smcti accuseﬁ; N02 is NEW and prociamatien may ha issued ands? 'aha ..s f , Procsdare. He citeﬁi a décision repo§r§e&:-2L1i.fiv{i'9 9 E'>)' {QHANDRA SHASHE Vs. ANIL Kvmiag VERMA). L. anything is done with oblique moti{fie.,_V'At}1€ sa}{':;:=:: :ii;i aniguzating ice interferenzts: with the admif;i$tx'at_i£§nV_§éf j."iv3;$i",i'<?.f'? ané such pﬁfI'S{)§fiS are rciquiretd E0 be propeiiy deal? §32'i'§}f£Vri:10i--"*c:Iiij§5._' :§§~V"§1Z11iSh them fa? the wreng Qicncft _ }:§i2:£._~gx1s;:$'«:0':i:aé§ia:: ﬁtiiers firm: inéuéging in simﬁar acts which " $_}:{a_ke' 5:" peogﬁe in the sysiem af ac§.minis1::ja'2i0;': 3;.1;S"£i:::¥:, ?.{ 'sis furiiier s11'm:ai!§€:§ that thcaugiz :,;ég£'.¢;';'1L{§§@\{f 1:?as'_f;1e=c§'§::'§ aﬂidavit fffxafz he haii 12.63, autherisaesii a21§"£#.3":é:.&_m3:;c.%§'~E¢Ss acscussﬁ $10.2 113 {$5 §:§;::e suit 311$ he has ma': L ~'€;§:e<:"aif:éé_ 'f;'%1€. af aitmnejg, but the siacumsnis fﬁezi :13 {B S _. : -i"'§€_};53.?3f the xemx sf the decumenis fziaé; by him in 'ﬁm: ' .'_V f13'$§.v'S":§§§.éf:1{§ 'ihemfare ii. ghaii ha p::esum€§ that aacased 5%.} has H ﬁgs Sui: éhreugh accuseci No.2 and the mmpgani hag mark: ..;<_s2;3;?: 2: piima facis case as against: accuseé $3.} for inffaéatizig . cantsmpt pracsaaiizzgs, L/f CCC(Crl).5./2009

5. At the very outset, it must be mentioned petitioner has filed the contempt petition through attorney holder--Sri Babu A Dhamrnanagi. T he "' attorney dated 10.11.2005 executed SlianikargotildallLingah.Va Gouda Patil in favour of B A Dharnrnanagildoes not'vier:ipQyy¢;§ to file the Contempt Petition. Sincei"=t_he_VPetitionis to initiate contempt proceedings, the ol:;j.e"lc'tior;[ regairolirig"locus--standi can be ignored.

6. In addressed by the learned Counsel for til1e"ecogniplairifantand accused No.1, We formulate the following point for our co:r1~siderat.io'n_;

t _ . _°Whethe'r..a_ccused No.1 has filed suit in s:"'1§ig.%i*2?3V/2008 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr. lljcxtanahalli through power of attorney No.2 and thereby abused the ip'roc"e.ss.oli" law and committed an offence under .. V. Section 2(c} of the Contempt of Courts Act '9 L C CC (C r§).5.»'2009

7. Our answer to the above point is in the negative for the following reasons: ' .. ' " i"

We have perused the records in O S No.<~'»l73/ of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) at Devanahalii. It disclos.esl:th.at:.i_the_ suit i for permanent injunction was filed on by through his power of attorney hold.er--B lVi..AIiJrneshgl.a.lccused through an Advocate--Sri K Sridhar The.pov,ri;r attorney was not ﬁled along with the cheickiislip is not forthcoming. The trial Court 2 thave' an objection regarding non--produe't.i.on. of§.i_po:wer ofiliatftogrnejsr on behalf of the plaintiff. difficult for the complainant to establish thatagcctised-..Nio.'1i:_lhals'iiled the suit through accused No.2. Furgtlaergggtheimentioned in the Vakalathnama theiiiilahie as maintained in the State Bar Coulniciili..._= basis of documents ﬁled along with the it cannot- ':J_eif.piresumed that the accused No.1 filed the suit

-...i'.throngh accused No.2. The identity of accused No.2 and the l'*«Advoeate._c_a'n.not be made out and traced. As against accused No.1 ,:js..r;:o_ncerned, he has ﬁled ariiaifidavit denying that he has not ll {§f.£fC{C.%.§}'{-§5Z{3§%~§ auiherisﬁt}. alzycas £9 ﬁle the suit Thﬁre is no maféria} recsrd to disprove the aﬁiéavit '§'}1::-1*&:fs31*x':,~-.3:23,er5f: is_ §::bV:vg0§§d--.fgrd%L;:1é f is yrocﬁeé filffflﬁfg The decision x"{a1i<T['}\(y:::€'-€:':_ﬂT." in " §§I£:;3S'h;.}i'$ cage, supra, is of :19 avaj} ':0 the :':9;s:i:V..g3§ the' f':Qmj;;§&iz1§g.§t:i:;"

8. In the resuit, {ha i:0:;t€3ipi_Ap§ﬁ$afi0n faﬁs §§z1d 1:115 same is izersby rcjecteci.

% Sd/-' JUDGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court