Karnataka High Court
High Court Of Karnataka vs Mrs.Meen M Dongre on 14 February, 2017
Equivalent citations: 2017 (3) AKR 548
Author: Vineet Kothari
Bench: Vineet Kothari
Date of Order 14-2-2017 CCC No.100157/2016
High Court of Karnataka
Vs.
Mrs. Meena M Dongre and two others.
1/23
R
0IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
C.C.C. No. 100157/2016 (CIVIL)
BETWEEN:
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU
REPRESENTED BY
REGISTRAR GENERAL.
... COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI C. S. PATIL, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MRS.MEENA M DONGRE,
W/O SHRI. MAHADEV DONGRE,
R/O KADOLKAR GALLI,
BELAGAVI-01.
2. MR.VICKY C/O JAY SONS,
R/O 1983/B, GANPAT GALLI,
BELAGAVI-01.
Date of Order 14-2-2017 CCC No.100157/2016
High Court of Karnataka
Vs.
Mrs. Meena M Dongre and two others.
2/23
3. SHRI D.A. KAMBLE
THE CITY SURVEY OFFICER,
BELAGAVI.
... ACCUSED
(BY SRI A P MURARI ADV FOR A-1)
(BY SRI G B NAIK AND P G NAIK ADVS FOR A-2)
(BY SRI DEEPAK S KULAKARNI ADV FOR A-3)
THIS CCC IS FILED U/S.11 & 12 OF CONTEMPT OF
COURTS ACT, 1971, R/W. ARTICLE 215 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO INITIATE
CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE
ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3 HEREIN AND PUNISH THEM FOR
VIOLATING AND DISOBEYING THE ORDER
DATED:03.06.2013 MADE IN RFA NO.4095/2013, WHICH
HAS BEEN SUBSEQUENTLY EXTENED BY THE ORDERS
DATED:01.07.2013 AND 31.07.2013 VIDE ANNEXURES-B
IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
DR.VINEET KOTHARI, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Sri C. S. Patil, Government Advocate Sri A P Murari, advocate for A-1 Sri G B Naik and Smt P P Naik, advocates for A-2 Sri Deepak S Kulakarni, Advocate for A-3)
1. This suo motu contempt petition was registered under the order passed by the learned Single Judge in RFA No.4095/2013 on 07.12.2015 for the alleged disobedience of Date of Order 14-2-2017 CCC No.100157/2016 High Court of Karnataka Vs. Mrs. Meena M Dongre and two others.
3/23 the status quo order passed by the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid RFA on 03.06.2013.
2. The aforesaid RFA No.4095/2013 was filed by the plaintiff, Sadiq S/o Bashirahmad Hanchinmani against defendant No.1, his own father Sri Bashirahmad Khatalsab Hanchinmani and defendant No.2, Smt. Meena Madhukar Dongre for declaration and possession of the suit property, a shop in question, situated in Belgaum.
3. The said suit OS No.43/2009, Sadiq V/s Bashirahmad came to be dismissed by the Trial Court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Belgaum on 28.03.2013. Hence, the present RFA No. 4095/2013 was filed by him before this court in which the aforesaid status quo order came to be passed by the learned Single Judge on 03.06.2013.
4. By the order dated 07.12.2015, in R.F.A. No.4095/2013, which is extracted in para No.4 of the Memo of contempt petition is quoted below for ready reference:
Date of Order 14-2-2017 CCC No.100157/2016 High Court of Karnataka Vs. Mrs. Meena M Dongre and two others.4/23
" In this appeal an order was passed on 02/12/2015 directing the Superintendent of Police, Belagavi, to seize the schedule property on or before 06/12/2015 and to surrender the key of the suit property before the Court. However, when this matter is called before this Court this day, learned Government Pleader would submit that the direction issued to the Superintendent of Police, Belagavi, cannot be implemented inasmuch as the jurisdiction over Belagavi is with the Police Commissioner. Hence, the same is required to be modified. Accordingly, by modifying the aforesaid order, the Police Commissioner, Belagavi is directed to execute the said order today before 4.30 in the evening and to surrender the key before the court.
2. In the meanwhile, in response to the order dated 02/12/2015, learned counsel Sri. Sangarm S. Kulkarni, who was earlier appearing for second respondent and also the present counsel Sri. S.C. Bheemaraddi, have filed their affidavit. Same are taken on record.
3. In the affidavit by learned counsel Sri. Sangram S. Kulkarni, he would submit that the second respondent sought his assistance in letting out the property in dispute during the pendency of the interim order for which he was not agreeable. Hence, the second respondent withdrew the vakalat that was given to him with his no objection to engage some other counsel to represent her interest. Accordingly, the counsel has returned his vakalat which he had filed earlier on behalf of the second respondent.
4. So far as the affidavit which is filed by learned counsel Sri. S.C. Bheemaraddi is concerned, who is appearing for second respondent with NOC from learned Sri. Sangram S. Kulkarni. In his affidavit, he has given in detail the particulars as to how instructions were provided to him by the second respondent for preparation of objections to the application filed in I.A.1/15.
Date of Order 14-2-2017 CCC No.100157/2016 High Court of Karnataka Vs. Mrs. Meena M Dongre and two others.5/23
5. On going through the affidavit, it is clearly seen that everything he has stated therein is not acceptable. There is an attempt to suppress his say in supporting the second respondent and her husband from trying to let out possession of property in dispute during the pendency of interim order granted by this Court. It is also seen that there is an attempt to tone down the magnitude of the offence committed by second respondent and her husband which has resulted in the appellant filing an application in I.A.1/15. At this juncture, it is necessary to place on record that this Court has been observing that the litigants are taking the law into their hands by disobeying the orders of the Court. This is yet another matter of similar nature.
6. As stated earlier, this very Bench passed interim order initially on 03/06/2013 after being fully convinced that the possession of the property is not delivered in favour of the second respondent. The said position is not objected to by the learned counsel Sri. Sangram S. Kulkarni when he entered appearance subsequently and in his presence interim order is granted by another four weeks on 01/07/2013 and subsequently it is extended until further orders on 31/07/2013. What was seen in the conduct of learned counsel Sri. Sangram S. Kulkarni, is found to be otherwise in the conduct of learned counsel Sri. S.C. Bheemaraddi who appeared on behalf of the second respondent subsequently. There is enough material to show that he extending his support to respondent No.2 and her husband in meddling with the interim order passed by this Court, which need to be ascertained by separate enquiry. In that view of the matter, this Court feel that this cannot be taken lightly and the matter is required to be investigated both by Bar council with reference to the conduct of learned counsel Sri. S.C. Bheemaraddi and by allowing application in I.A.1/15 filed by the appellant and initiating contempt proceedings against opponents 1 to 3 in the said application.
Date of Order 14-2-2017 CCC No.100157/2016 High Court of Karnataka Vs. Mrs. Meena M Dongre and two others.6/23
7. Accordingly, this Court refer this matter to Bar Council so far as it pertains to the conduct of learned Counsel S.C. Bheemaraddi in extending his professional service to second respondent, her husband and others in violating the interim order granted by this Court with reference to possession of the property in dispute.
8. The registry is directed to send a xerox copy of the entire order sheet in this second appeal along with the xerox copy of the affidavit of learned counsel Sri. S.C. Bheemaraddi and as well as the learned counsel Sri. Sangram S. Kulkarni to the Bar Council of Karnataka with a direction to initiate appropriate proceedings against learned counsel Sri. S.C. Bheemaraddi to ascertain his involvement in violation of terms of interim order by second respondent and her husband in this proceedings. Also to take suitable action if it is found that the conduct of the counsel Sri. S.C. Bheemaraddi, in fact, supported second respondent and her husband to disobey the order of this Court.
9. In the meanwhile, registry is directed to initiate contempt proceedings against accused in I.A.1/15. Initiation of contempt proceedings will not come in the way of inquiry to be initiated against learned counsel Sri. S.C. Bheemaraddi before the Bar Council which is to be continued independently. In the meanwhile, final hearing of this appeal shall go on. This appeal shall be posted on 14/12/2015 for final hearing.
The memo of retirement filed by learned counsel Sri. Sangram S. Kulkarni, on behalf of second respondent is accepted and is permitted to retire. Registry is directed to remove the name of Sri. Sangram S. Kulkarni, as counsel appearing for second respondent in the cause list."
Date of Order 14-2-2017 CCC No.100157/2016 High Court of Karnataka Vs. Mrs. Meena M Dongre and two others.
7/23
5. Later on, another learned Single Judge passed a detailed interim order after hearing the concerned parties on 28.03.2016 on IA No.2/16 and IA No.3/16 in aforesaid RFA No.4095/13. The relevant portion of the said order is also quoted below for ready reference:-
" I have given a careful consideration to the rival contentions and perused the records.
The incontrovertible facts of this case are that the appellant filed a suit praying for a declaration that he is the owner in possession of the suit schedule property. The suit was filed against his own father, defendant No.1 and respondent No.2 herein (defendant No.2) who has purchased the property from defendant no.1. The judgment of the trial Court shows that defendant No.1 has remained ex parte. The trial Court on consideration of the material on record has recorded a finding of fact that second respondent is in possession of the property. Precisely, it has stated thus:
"28.Issue Nos.3, 4 and 6: In the light of my discussion and answers to the above issues, it is clear that plaintiff is not entitled to the declaratory or the consequential reliefs as sought for by him. On the facts it is proved that defendant No.2 has acquired valid title over the suit property and she is in exclusive possession of the property as an owner thereof. Further, the very validity and essentials of oral gift or hiba is not proved by the plaintiff. On the question of limitation also the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. Date of Order 14-2-2017 CCC No.100157/2016 High Court of Karnataka Vs. Mrs. Meena M Dongre and two others.8/23
Accordingly, I answer all these Issues in the negative."
(underlining is by me) With the above finding, the trial Court has dismissed the suit. Thus, the only logical inference which can be drawn by reading the judgment of the trial Court that the second respondent was in exclusive possession of the property as a owner as on the date of the judgment.
This Court on 3.6.2013 has passed the following order:
"Issue emergent notice regarding
admission.
Call for the records.
Status Quo regarding title and
possession for four weeks."
In the backdrop of above facts, the question that falls for consideration of this Court is, whether the second respondent shall be entitled for the benefit of continuance of possession pursuant to the order of status quo dated 3.6.2013, pending disposal of this appeal?
As on the date of the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the second respondent was in exclusive possession of the suit property as an owner thereof. Therefore, the order of status quo dated 3.6.2013 would logically and irrefutably mean that the finding recorded by the trial Court should be protected.
The relevant portion of the police complaint lodged by the appellant on 27.3.2010 referred to by the learned Senior Counsel reads as follows:
"I state on receipt of the suit summons the said lady and her husband by utilizing the influence of bad Date of Order 14-2-2017 CCC No.100157/2016 High Court of Karnataka Vs. Mrs. Meena M Dongre and two others.9/23
element of the society got succeeded in taking possession of the shop premises during the pendency of the suit by breaking open the lock put by me. I state I have visited the shop premises in the month of November 2009 and saw that Smt.Meena and her husband with the help of local gundas have illegally took possession of the shop premises and when I have objected the same the accused persons have told that they will not use the shop premises until the case is completed but recently they are put up the board on the shop and making it use of the shop premises for godown purpose illegally.
I respectfully state that the above said person are not took the possession with due process but illegally occupied the same by committing criminal trespass during the pendency of the suit in O.S.No.43/09. I state that on 26th evening when I have objected for opening of shop premises at that time Shri Madhukar Dongare by using filthy language insulted me and also given threat to my life saying that if the suit has not been withdrawn within 4 days than he will see that I will be murdered in the market itself. Hence I have fair towards the threat of the accused Madukar."
During the course of the argument, this Court in order to examine the allegations contained in the I.A. filed under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC posed a pointed question to the learned Counsel for the appellant as to when exactly he had come in possession of the suit schedule property. On instructions from the appellant who is present in the Court, the learned Counsel for the appellant answered as follows:
That he was never in possession himself but his claim over possession was through his tenant.
With regard to the complaint to the Deputy Superintendent of police dated 27.3.2010, he submitted that on the very day, the suit property was locked by the second respondent and she was Date of Order 14-2-2017 CCC No.100157/2016 High Court of Karnataka Vs. Mrs. Meena M Dongre and two others.10/23
warned by the police not to open the lock and to follow the Court order.
Admittedly, the copy of the police complaint dated 27.3.2010 filed along with the I.A. under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC by the appellant is yet to be taken on record. However, a combined reading of the portion of complaint extracted supra in conjunction with the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant that he was never in possession of the suit property, will fortify the view taken by me that the possession of the second respondent needs to be protected pending disposal of this appeal. The categorical submission by the learned Counsel for the appellant that premises was locked and the police had warned the second respondent not to open the lock and to follow the orders of the Court necessitates consideration of the I.A. for direction filed by the second respondent.
In the circumstances, I am of the view that benefit of a decree passed by the competent Civil Court must enure to the benefit of the party who has succeeded before the trial Court after full-dressed trial. The logical corollary is that the order of status quo must protect the possession of the second respondent.
Resultantly, the I.A.for direction to hand over the key merits consideration. Hence, the following order:
1. I.A.3/2016 for direction is allowed.
Registry is directed to hand over the key to second respondent forthwith;
2. In view of the finding recorded by the trial Court with regard to possession and the order of status quo dated 3.6.2013 and in the light of allowing I.A.3/2016, I.A.2/2016 also stands disposed of.
Date of Order 14-2-2017 CCC No.100157/2016 High Court of Karnataka Vs. Mrs. Meena M Dongre and two others.
11/23 This order shall be in force until disposal of this appeal.
At this stage, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the name of the second respondent has been entered in the CTS records on 30.3.2015 and prays that the same may be made subject to outcome of this appeal. It is needless to state that any entry made in the CTS record shall be governed by the final order to be passed in this appeal.
6. Learned Government Counsel, Mr. C. S. Patil submitted before us that since the suit property in question was sold by the defendant No.1, Sri Bashirahmad to defendant No.2, Smt Meena Madhukar Dongre, though prior to the said status quo order on 03.06.2013, namely on 03.02.2009 and the paper possession was given to the accused-respondent No.1, Smt Meena Madhukar Dongre as per the stipulation in the said sale deed dated 03.02.2009, but a forged Lease deed was further executed by the said accused-respondent No.1, Smt Meena Dongre in favour of accused-respondent No.2, Mr. Vicky on 20.05.2013 purportedly ante-dated, to be prior to the status quo order dated 03.06.2013 and the mutation entries in CTS record were made by the accused- respondent No.3, Mr. D.A. Date of Order 14-2-2017 CCC No.100157/2016 High Court of Karnataka Vs. Mrs. Meena M Dongre and two others.
12/23 Kamble on 30.03.2015 being aware of the status quo order passed by this court. Hence, all the three accused- respondents have committed contempt of the said interim order dated 03.06.2013, and therefore, they deserve to be punished in accordance with law. He further submitted that the handing over of the possession was subject to encashment of cheque given by defendant No.2 and therefore, the possession was not actually given and in that regard a criminal complaint under Section 138 of NI Act is pending.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel of the accused- respondent No.1 Mr. A P Murari urged before us that there is no deliberate disobedience of the status quo order passed by the learned Single Judge on 03.06.2013 by the accused- respondent No.1 as the Sale of the suit property had admittedly taken place much prior to the said status quo order dated 03.06.2013, namely on 03.02.2009. He submitted that the suit in O. S. No.43/09 had been dismissed by the learned Trial Court and even the status quo Date of Order 14-2-2017 CCC No.100157/2016 High Court of Karnataka Vs. Mrs. Meena M Dongre and two others.
13/23 order dated 03.06.2013 came to be modified by the detailed order passed subsequently by the learned Single Judge on 28.03.2016, quoted above.
8. He also submitted before us that the transaction of sale as well as further lease by accused-respondent No.1 in favour of accused-respondent No.2 is of course subject to the final decision of the present appeal R.F.A. No.4095/2013 itself and principles of lis pendens would apply to these transactions also and the rights of the respective parties in the lis would be governed by the final decision of the first appeal itself, namely, RFA No.4095/13. He, therefore, submitted that there is no disobedience or breach of the said interim order dated 03.06.2013, much less a deliberate disobedience on the part of the Respondent No.1 so as to attract contempt action against her.
9. The learned counsel for the accused-respondent No.2, Ms. P. G. Naik submitted that the respondent No.2 is the lessee under the lease deed, in question, and his rights Date of Order 14-2-2017 CCC No.100157/2016 High Court of Karnataka Vs. Mrs. Meena M Dongre and two others.
14/23 would also be subject to the final decision of the appeal itself.
10. As far as Respondent No.3, the City Survey Officer is concerned, his learned counsel submitted that the said respondent was not even made aware of the said status quo order on the date when the said mutation entries were made on 30.03.2015 in terms of the registered sale deed produced before him and thus, there is no deliberate disobedience on the part of the accused-respondent No.3.
11. We have heard learned counsels at Bar and given our earnest consideration to the facts before us in the present suo motu contempt petition registered as CCC No.100157/16, High Court of Karnataka vs. Mrs. Meena Madhukar Dongre and two others.
12. We are satisfied that there is no deliberate disobedience on the part of the accused-respondents in the present case and the contempt action against them deserves to be closed without any finding of guilt against them.
Date of Order 14-2-2017 CCC No.100157/2016 High Court of Karnataka Vs. Mrs. Meena M Dongre and two others.
15/23 Admittedly, the sale of suit property, in question, in the present case by defendant No.1, father, Mr. Bashirahmad Hanchinamani in favour of defendant No.2, Smt Meena Madhukar Dongre took place during the pendency of the suit, OS No.43/2009 on 03.02.2009. Since the suit itself came to be dismissed by the learned Trial Court, naturally, the said sale in favour of defendant No.2 was upheld by the Trial Court and the appeal was filed by the plaintiff- appellant, son Mr. Sadiq S/o Bashirahmad Hanchinmani. The exparte interim order granted by learned Single Judge on 03.06.2013 directing the status quo to be maintained with respect to suit property could only mean that the title and possession of purchaser Smt Meena Madhukar Dongre was to be maintained in terms of the said order.
13. However, it appears that on account of a further lease deed executed by defendant No.2, Smt Meena Madhukar Dongre in favour of accused-respondent No.2, Mr. Vicky executed on 20.05.2013, the learned Single Judge felt that the same amounted to over-reaching the process of the Date of Order 14-2-2017 CCC No.100157/2016 High Court of Karnataka Vs. Mrs. Meena M Dongre and two others.
16/23 Court and possession was also purportedly handed over by accused-respondent No.1, Smt Meena Madhukar Dongre to Mr. Vicky after the said status quo order was granted, therefore it amounted to contempt and therefore cognizance thereof was taken by the learned Single Judge.
14. However, the said exparte interim order dated:03.06.2013 came to be modified by another learned Single Judge on 28.03.2016, as quoted above and while protecting and maintaining possession of the accused- respondent No.1, Smt. Meena Madhukar Dongre, the court also directed that even the entries made in CTS records on 30.05.2015 shall remain subject to the final decision of the appeal itself, and rightly so.
15. We are of the considered opinion that in dealing with the said suit property by transfer of any interest therein would have been subject to the final decision of the appeal itself on the doctrine of lis pendens and therefore, by inter- locutory order, the learned Single Judge could not be naturally expected to decide the rights of the parties finally.
Date of Order 14-2-2017 CCC No.100157/2016 High Court of Karnataka Vs. Mrs. Meena M Dongre and two others.
17/23 The said appeal is admittedly pending even now and the parties to the lis are obviously free to get their rights determined in the said pending appeal. We find considerable force in the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the subsequent order dated 28.03.2016 modifying the earlier exparte interim order dated 03.06.2013 that with the dismissal of the suit, the status quo order dated 03.06.2013 could only mean to protect title and possession of the defendant No.2 Smt. Meena Madhukar Dongre, who succeeded in the suit. Apparently even the lease deed executed by her in favour of accused-respondent No.2, Mr. Vicky on 20.05.2013 was prior to the date of status quo order on 03.06.2013. The allegation against the accused- respondents that it was so ante-dated to circumvent the exparte order dated 03.06.2013 does not impress us. The parties, of course, are at liberty to agitate their respective claims in the pending appeal, as aforesaid and any expression on the merits of their rival claims by us at this stage in the present contempt petition would be premature Date of Order 14-2-2017 CCC No.100157/2016 High Court of Karnataka Vs. Mrs. Meena M Dongre and two others.
18/23 and uncalled for. Therefore, we advisedly refrain from doing so.
16. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anil Ratan Sarkar and others v. Hirak Ghosh and others [AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 1405] has held as under :
" The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been introduced in the Statute Book for the purposes of securing a feeling of confidence of the people in general and for due and proper administration of justice in the country - Undoubtedly a powerful weapon in the hands of the law Courts but that by itself operates as string of caution and unless thus otherwise satisfied beyond doubt, it would neither be fair nor reasonable for the law Courts to exercise jurisdiction under the Statute. Powers under the Act should be exercised with utmost care and caution and that too rather sparingly and in the larger interest of the society, and for proper administration of the justice delivery system in the country. Exercise of powers within the meaning of the Act of 1971 shall thus be a rarity and that too in a matter on which there exists no Date of Order 14-2-2017 CCC No.100157/2016 High Court of Karnataka Vs. Mrs. Meena M Dongre and two others.19/23
doubt as regards the initiation of the action being bona fide."
17. In the R. N. Dey and Others Vs. Bhagyabati Pramanik and Others, (2000) 4 SCC 400, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the contempt jurisdiction cannot be used for execution of decree or implementation of an order for which an alternative remedy in law is provided for. That case also arose in a contempt matter against the interim order passed by the High Court and the Court held that under the coercion of contempt proceedings, the appellants could not have been directed to pay the compensation amount which they are disputing with the assertion that the claimants were not the owners of the property in question. The relevant portion of paragraph 7 of the judgment is quoted for ready reference:
"7. ....the weapon of contempt is not to be used in abundance or misused. Normally, it cannot be used for execution of the decree or implementation of an order for which alternative remedy in law is provided for. Discretion given to Date of Order 14-2-2017 CCC No.100157/2016 High Court of Karnataka Vs. Mrs. Meena M Dongre and two others.20/23
the Court is to be exercised for maintenance of Court's dignity and majesty of law. Further, an aggrieved party has no right to insist that Court should exercise such jurisdiction as contempt is between a contemner and the Court. It is true that in the present case, the High Court has kept the matter pending and has ordered that it should be heard along with the First Appeal. But, at the same time, it is to be noticed that under the coercion of contempt proceeding, appellants cannot be directed to pay the compensation amount which they are disputing by asserting that claimants were not the owners of the property in question and that decree was obtained by suppressing the material fact and by fraud. Even presuming that the claimants are entitled to recover the amount of compensation as awarded by the trial court as no stay order is granted by the High Court, at the most they are entitled to recover the same by executing the said award wherein the State can or may contend that the award is a nullity. In such a situation, as there was no wilful or deliberate disobedience of the order, the initiation of contempt proceedings was wholly unjustified."
Date of Order 14-2-2017 CCC No.100157/2016 High Court of Karnataka Vs. Mrs. Meena M Dongre and two others.
21/23
18. In Dinesh Kumar Gupta Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and others, (2010) 12 SCC 770, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the order alleged to have been disobeyed itself provides scope for reasonable or rational interpretation of the said order, then contempt action cannot be initiated on the basis of such order for the accidental or unintentional disobedience. The Court set aside the suo motu contempt proceedings initiated by the learned Single Judge against the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of Rajasthan High Court for the alleged non- implementation of the interim order of stay passed by him and the Court held that the contempt proceedings cannot be sustained merely on speculation, assumption and inference drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case. The relevant extracts from paragraphs 23 and 24 of the judgment are quoted below for ready reference:
"An important statutory ingredient of contempt of a civil nature given under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, is that the disobedience to the order alleging contempt has to satisfy the test that it is a wilful disobedience to Date of Order 14-2-2017 CCC No.100157/2016 High Court of Karnataka Vs. Mrs. Meena M Dongre and two others.22/23
the order. A proceeding for civil contempt would not lie if the order alleged to have been disobeyed itself provides scope for reasonable or rational interpretation of an order or circumstance which is the factual position in the instant matter. It would equally not be correct to infer that a party although acting due to misapprehension of the correct legal position and in good faith without any motive to defeat or defy the order of the Court, should be viewed as a serious ground so as to give rise to a contempt proceeding. Thus, accidental or unintentional disobedience is not sufficient to justify for holding one guilty of contempt. The settled law on the law of contempt that casual or accidental or unintentional acts of disobedience under the circumstances which negate any suggestion of contumacy, would amount to a contempt in theory only and does not render the contemnor liable for punishment."
19. In view of the aforesaid legal position, we are satisfied that the suo motu proceedings initiated by the learned Single Judge against the respondents in the present case also deserves to be closed and the present contempt Date of Order 14-2-2017 CCC No.100157/2016 High Court of Karnataka Vs. Mrs. Meena M Dongre and two others.
23/23 petition deserves to be dismissed leaving it free for the parties to agitate their respective claims before the Court in the pending Regular First Appeal No.4095 of 2013.
20. With the aforesaid, we are not inclined to proceed further with the present contempt petition against the accused-respondents and we find that the contempt petition deserves to be dismissed. The same is accordingly dismissed. Notices are discharged.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE hnm/yan/RK/-