Karnataka High Court
Smt Nisha K V vs Sri K D Chandra on 21 October, 2022
Author: Prasanna B. Varale
Bench: Prasanna B. Varale
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
C. C. C. NO.508 OF 2022 (CIVIL)
BETWEEN:
SMT. NISHA K V
W/O A.K. CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
MANISHA FASHIONS,
7TH WARD, 2ND CROSS,
OPPOSITE TO MAIN SCHOOL,
M.G. ROAD, CHATRADA BEEDHI,
RAMANAGAR 562 159.
...COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI. SOMASHEKHARAIAH R P, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. K D CHANDRA
S/O DODDIRE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT NO.28,
KORATAGERE DODDI,
UYYAMBALLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK
MULLAHALLI, RAMANAGARA
KANAKAPURA 562 119.
....ACCUSED
(BY SRI. TULSI KUMAR B.N., ADVOCATE)
2
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 R/W SECTIONS 11 AND
12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, 1971, PRAYING TO
INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE
ALLEGED CONTEMNOR FOR WILLFULLY AND
DELIBERATELY DISOBEYING THE STATUS-QUO ORDER
PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN WP NO.12251/2020
(GM-POLICE) DATED 23.06.2021, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
ASHOK S. KINAGI, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This contempt petition is arising out of the interim order dated 23.6.2021 passed in W.P.No.12251/2020.
2. The petitioner filed the writ petition in W.P.No.12251/2020 seeking for the following reliefs :
a) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to initiate appropriate legal proceedings against the respondent No.2 to 4 for not taking action on the complaint lodged by the petitioner dated 27.8.2020 under Annexure-
P1 to P3.
b) Issue necessary direction to the respondent No.1 to take appropriate action against respondent No.8 for passing illegal order without 3 looking to the documents produced by the respondent No7 for evicting the petitioner from the schedule property.
c) Issue direction to the respondent No.1 to refer the matter to any other investigating agency or CCB and to submit report with regard to the dispossession of the petitioner from the schedule property.
3. The learned Single Judge after hearing the learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner issued notice to respondents No.9 and 10 and meanwhile directed the parties to maintain status-quo. The grievance of the complainant is that the accused has willfully disobeyed the order of the learned Single Judge and has illegally trespassed into the schedule property and leased the same to the third party. Thus, the accused committed breach of order passed in the aforesaid writ petition. Hence, action may be taken against the accused.
4
4. The accused/respondent filed statement of objections contending that the aforesaid writ petition came to be dismissed vide order dated 11.7.2022 and contended that the interim order merges with the final order. Hence, the contempt petition filed by the complainant is not maintainable and accordingly, prayed to drop the contempt petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the accused/respondent has willfully disobeyed the order passed by the learned Single Judge. He further submits that though the writ petition came to be dismissed but however, the respondent has disobeyed the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the respondent is liable to be punished. Hence, on these grounds he prays to allow the contempt petition.
5
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused respondent submits that the writ petition came to be dismissed and the impugned order merges with the final order. Hence, the contempt petition is liable to dropped.
8. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
9. It is an undisputed fact that the complainant has filed the writ petition in W.P.No.12251/2020. The learned single Judge vide order dated 23.7.2021, issued notice to respondents No.9 and 10 in the writ petition and in the meanwhile directed the parties to maintain status quo. The complainant has filed this contempt on 6.6.2022. During the pendency of this contempt, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the complainant vide order dated 11.7.2022. The interim order passed in the aforesaid writ petition merges with the final order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kanwar 6 Singh Saini V. High Court of Delhi (2012) 4 SCC 307 has held that the application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A CPC lies only where disobedience/breach of an injunction granted or order complained of was the one granted by the Court under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC; which is naturally to enure during the pendency of the suit; and once a suit is decreed, the interim order merges into the final order.
10. In the instant case, breach of an interim order lies only during the pendency of the writ petition. Once the writ petition is dismissed, the interim order merges into the final order. This court in the case of Abdul Razak & others V. Abdul Rahiman & Others in W.P.Nos.202388-202389 of 2015 disposed of on 23.10.2016 has reiterated the view expressed in Kanwar Singh supra.
11. In view of the above discussion, nothing survives for consideration in this contempt petition. 7 Accordingly, we drop the contempt petition against the accused.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE rs