Gujarat High Court
Natvarlal Devchandbhai Kabrawala vs State Of Gujarat on 25 April, 2023
Author: Ashutosh Shastri
Bench: Ashutosh Shastri
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/360/2023 ORDER DATED: 25/04/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 360 of 2023
In
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1661 of 2023
=============================================
NATVARLAL DEVCHANDBHAI KABRAWALA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
=============================================
Appearance:
MR.NANDISH H THACKAR(7008) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR JAYNEEL PARIKH ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Opponent(s) No. 1,2,3
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH SHASTRI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 25/04/2023
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH SHASTRI)
1. The present contempt petition under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, is filed under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with provisions under the Contempt of Courts Act, for seeking the following reliefs :-
"13(a) Your Lordships may be pleased to Admit and allow this Misc. Civil Application;
(b) Your Lordships may be pleased to hold the Respondents no. 2 and 3 guilty of willfully disobeying the order dated 03.02.2023 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Special Criminal Application No. 1661 of 2023 as well as the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Page 1 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:50:12 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/360/2023 ORDER DATED: 25/04/2023 undefined Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and may further be pleased to pass an order of punishment against the Respondents no. 2 and 3 under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice;
(c) Your Lordships may be pleased to pass any other and further relief deemed just and proper be granted in the interest of justice;"
2. The background of fact which has given rise to this petition is that a dispute arose with respect to land bearing Survey No. 72/1 admeasuring 1 acre 15 gunthas at Vesu village District Surat. The original owner of the said land was one Shri Rustomji Hormasji. On 21.08.1985 the said original owner has executed an agreement to sell along with possession in favour of the applicant after receiving entire sale consideration of Rs.40,401/- and since then, the applicant is stated to be in possession. On 29.08.2022, the applicant filed a civil suit being Special Civil Suit No. 176 of 2022 in the court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Surat through Power of Attorney Holder inter alia seeking relief of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 21.08.1995 and had also prayed for declaration and injunction. The applicant had also filed an application for interim relief as well as application for appointment of Court Commissioner. Page 2 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:50:12 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/360/2023 ORDER DATED: 25/04/2023 undefined However, with a view to pressurize the applicant to withdraw the suit, a complaint came to be filed.
2.1. The applicant on 03.09.2022 had also filed detailed complaint before the Police Inspector, Umra Police Station against the original complainant for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 469, 471, 474, 114, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under the provisions of Land Grabbing Act, since anti social elements were also threatening the applicant and as such, one Mr. Mahesh Vasva had filed the said compliant as Power of Attorney Holder of the present applicant. It is the assertion of the present applicant that the court below on an application for appointment of Court Commissioner issued summons to all the concerned parties on 03.09.2022 and also asked them to remain personally present on the subject land on the next date i.e. 04.09.2022 for the purpose of drawing panchnama. On the said date i.e. on 04.09.2022, the Court Commissioner had drawn panchnama in the presence of applicant as well as original complainant and others and report was prepared and submitted before the concerned court in which it was revealed that possession is Page 3 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:50:12 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/360/2023 ORDER DATED: 25/04/2023 undefined found to be with the applicant. It is the case of the applicant that report of the Court Commissioner indicated that the applicant had placed two boards at the subject land stating the the possession of the applicant and restraining any one to enter the land without prior permission of the applicant. However, on 13.09.2022 when the applicant visited the subject land, it was found that the some unknown person had removed two boards which were installed on the subject land and as such, the applicant made necessary compliant to the Police Inspector, Umra Police Station, Surat for taking appropriate steps. Later on, on 15.10.2022, the applicant was constrained to make an application before the Police Inspector, in-charge of Vesu Police Station for granting police protection so as to prevent anti social elements which were deputed by the original complainant to oust the applicant from the possession so-much-so that when the Civil Suit came to be filed by the applicant and the summons came to be issued upon the original complainant instead of filing complaint against the present applicant, with respect to very same subject matter, on 31.10.2022, respondent no. 2 sent summons in connection with the compliant which has been filed Page 4 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:50:12 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/360/2023 ORDER DATED: 25/04/2023 undefined by the original complainant and directed the applicant to remain present on 01.11.2022. On that day, the applicant did remain present before respondent no. 2 who also recorded statement. Later on, on 23.11.2022 when the applicant was present on the subject land, some six to seven unknown persons came on the subject land with weapons and began to threaten the applicant to give possession of the land and the applicant was further threatened by indicating that owner i.e. one Dilbarben is an influential person and if the applicant would register a complaint with respect to this land then, it would be fatal to the applicant. It is the case of the applicant that a guard was also appointed by the applicant who stayed on the subject land, who was also threatened and as such, immediately, the applicant has lodged a complaint before the Police Inspector, In-charge Umra Police Station, Surat against those concerned persons, narrating the entire incident.
2.2. It is the case of the applicant that pursuant to action being initiated by the present applicant as stated above, as a counterblast to that, the original complaint preferred complaint before respondent no. 2 which was inquired into and applicant Page 5 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:50:12 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/360/2023 ORDER DATED: 25/04/2023 undefined was again called upon by respondent no. 2 to record the statement. The applicant did remain present and the statements of the applicant have been recorded by respondent no. 2 on various occasions and necessary documents were also furnished by the present applicant, but again and again summons are being issued by respondent no. 2 on the present applicant as well as Power of Attorney with a view to pressurize and as such, the applicant was constrained to approach this Court ultimately by way of Special Criminal Application No. 1661 of 2023 for seeking appropriate relief and vide order dated 03.02.2023, the same came to be disposed of with a direction as recorded in paragraph 3 of the said order. It was clearly mentioned in the said order that in case the petitioners are sought to be arrested then 15 days prior notice shall be given to the petitioners before effecting his arrest so as to enable them to have recourse available under the law.
2.3. Despite aforesaid order having been passed in the presence of learned Assistant Government Pleader, two Police Officers in civil dress under the instruction of respondent no. 2 Page 6 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:50:12 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/360/2023 ORDER DATED: 25/04/2023 undefined came to the residence of the applicant on 04.03.2023 at about 7:45 pm and by threatening the applicant had taken away the applicant along with them. The applicant who is aged about 80 years had immediately shown the order which has been passed by the High Court and despite that not only the applicant was arrested, but was detained for about two hours. Subsequently, to come out from the said unauthorized detention, an FIR came to be registered against the applicant on 04.03.2023, being FIR No. 11210068230071 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 447, 465, 467, 468, 471, 504, 114, 143, 147, 148, 149, 120B and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code. Under the circumstance, it has been alleged that in contemptuous manner, respondent no. 2 in furtherance of registration of FIR has issued notice on 05.03.2023 to the applicant for the purpose of seeking arrest and gave time of 15 days days as per the direction issued by this Court. It is the case of the applicant that despite a clear direction as indicated above, respondent no. 1 had detained the present applicant without even registration of FIR and as such, since action is in willful defiance of the order dated 03.02.2023 passed by this Court in Special Criminal Application No. 1661 of Page 7 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:50:12 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/360/2023 ORDER DATED: 25/04/2023 undefined 2023 as well as direction given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1, the applicant is constrained to approach this Court by way of present contempt petition with relief to hold respondent guilty and punish under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act.
3. Upon unilateral version, at the time of first hearing, a written report was produced before this Court by learned Additional Public Prosecutor and had passed the following order:-
"Written report produced by learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Manan Mehta shall be kept alongwith the papers of this application.
2. By invoking contempt jurisdictions under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the petitioner seeks the following relief, "to hold the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 guilty of willfully disobeying the order dated 3.2.2023 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Special Criminal Application no. 1661 of 2023 as well as the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of the Lalita Kumari versus Government of Uttar Pradesh and may further be pleased to pass an order of punishment against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 under provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.'
3. The decision of the Apex Court in Lalita Kumari vs. Page 8 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:50:12 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/360/2023 ORDER DATED: 25/04/2023 undefined Government of Uttar Pradesh and Others [(2014) 2 SCC 1] inter alia mandates that registration of FIR is mandatory under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, if the information received is cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
4. The prayer with regard to breach of decision in Lalita Kumari (supra), even as advanced, when the petition comes up for consideration, it is not in dispute that the FIR is already registered.
5. Though the aforesaid situation is obtaining, having regard to averments made in para 4 of the application and the attendant aspects, we deem it fit to seek explanation from the respondent No.2 who may file affidavit to explain the averments made in para 4 of the application. Stand over to 21.3.2023."
4. With the aforesaid background, the petition came up for consideration before this Court in which Mr. Nandish Thackar learned advocate has represented the applicant and has contended that despite clear direction as contained in an order dated 03.02.2023, the applicant is detained unauthorizedly and thereby has also violated the decision delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari (supra) and after drawing attention to the relevant observations made in the petition, a request is made to pass appropriate order in the context of the relief which has been sought for. Learned Page 9 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:50:12 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/360/2023 ORDER DATED: 25/04/2023 undefined advocate Mr. Thackar has pointed out specifically paragraphs 5 and 6 to support his submission and as such, has submitted that the applicant who is aged about 80 years is pressurized to that extent that he may forgo the challenge which has been made with respect to land in question and pressure is built only with a view to see that somehow the applicant should vacate the subject land and thereby the Police authorities have excessively used the powers and unauthorizedly detained the applicant. Hence, appropriate orders be passed in this regard.
5. As against this, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent has vehemently opposed the petition and has contended that there is no intention at all on the part of the applicant to flout the order of the Court in any manner. On the contrary, as and when the officer came to know about the order when served upon him, immediately, the applicant was released from the alleged detention. On the contrary, the applicant was never arrested and as such, the entire episode which took place has been explained in detailed affidavit-in-reply and as such, learned Assistant Government Pleader has drawn attention of this Court to the specific Page 10 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:50:12 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/360/2023 ORDER DATED: 25/04/2023 undefined assertion which has been made in the affidavit-in-reply and has submitted that there was no detention or willful defiance of the order passed by this Court and as such, has requested to drop the contempt proceedings.
6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, no doubt the order was very much passed by the Court on 03.02.2023 in Special Criminal Application No. 1661 of 2023, but in view of the explanation which has been given with necessary particulars, we are of the opinion, that there appears to be no willful or deliberate intention to flout the order. It has been categorically submitted that as soon as it was noticed the applicant was immediately released. Hence, in view of this detailed explanation, we are of the opinion that element of willful or deliberate defiance is prima facie not established. Since we have formulated this opinion, we deem it proper to quote hereunder the relevant explanation which has been given by the authority on oath as referred to in paragraph 6 onward :
"6.1. With reference to the contents of the paragraph No. 4 and 5(b) of the memo of petition, it is respectfully stated that the order passed by this Honourable Court in the Page 11 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:50:12 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/360/2023 ORDER DATED: 25/04/2023 undefined proceedings of Special Criminal Application No. 1661 dated the 03.02.2023, was not known to the investigating officer and the persons who have reached to the place of the residents of the petitioner herein. It is further stated that the aforesaid order passed by this Hon'ble court in the aforesaid proceeding was never served with the office of the deponent/concerned police station and therefore, due to misunderstanding, the present petitioner was apprehended at around about 8 PM on 04.03.2023 from his residence. This was done considering the seriousness of the offence of the process for lodgement of compliant was ongoing a the concerned police station and if the petitioner comes to know about the lodgement of FIR (being the main and prime accused of the complaint), there are all likelihoods that he may run away and would not be apprehended further and therefore the police personals were sent to the place of residence of the petitioner and the petitioner was brought at the concerned police station at around 8:15 PM on 04.03.2023. However, it is respectfully stated that as and when the order of this Hon'ble Court of above referred Special Criminal Application proceeding was brought to the notice of the deponent, the present petitioner was freed and on the next day, the notice as provided and directed by the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 03.02.2023 was issued by the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 03.02.2023 was issued to the present petitioner and other co-accused. It needs to mentioned that if the order of this Hon'ble notice of the deponent in prior point of time this entire situation could have been avoided. A copy of the notice dated 05.03.2023 issued by the police authority is enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure- R1 to this affidavit.
6.2. With reference to the contents of paragraph no. 5 (a) of the memo of petition, it is respectfully stated that as stated herein-above, on 17.10.2022, a written complaint was addressed to the office of the Commissioner of Police, Surat and the present deponent was handed over the investigation/enquiry of the aforesaid application and after Page 12 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:50:12 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/360/2023 ORDER DATED: 25/04/2023 undefined the receipt of the concrete evidences for lodgement of the complaint, vide order dated 08.02.2023 (through proper channel), sanction was sought by the deponent from the office of the Commissioner of Police Surat and the same was recorded on 03.03.2023 and thereafter the complaint was filed on 04.03.2023 hence, it can be said that in the concerned police station, the information was received only on 04.03.2023 and hence in the complaint, the said aspect are clearly mentioned.
6.3. With reference to the contents of paragraph no. 5 (c) of the memo of petition, it is respectfully stated that through oversight, the concerned PSO could not mention the station diary entry which is an entry no. 27 of 2023 on 21:10 hours on 04.03.3023. A copy of the station diary entry is enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure-R-2 to this affidavit."
7. Considering the aforesaid explanation, we are of the opinion that no case is made out to continue the contempt proceedings. Hence, we deem it proper to drop the contempt proceedings.
8. At this stage we may observe that unless and until a clear case is made out of willful disobedience, stringent action against the Contempt of Courts Act is not desirable. Looking to the explanation which has been put-forth in an affidavit, we are of the view that undisputedly when the applicant is released the moment a copy of the order is made available to an officer, we Page 13 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:50:12 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/360/2023 ORDER DATED: 25/04/2023 undefined are satisfied that there appears to be no deliberate intent as indicated by the applicant, more particularly when the authority has tendered a specific apology and in peculiar background of facts, we deem it proper not to continue the present proceedings. While coming to this conclusion, we would remind ourselves to few observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. U.N. Bora, Ex-Chief Executive Officer and Ors. v. Assam Roller Flour Mills Association & Anr., reported in (2022) 1 SCC 101 on the issue of contempt proceedings and we deem it proper to quote here-under the relevant observations:
9. We do not wish to reiterate the aforesaid settled principle of law except by quoting the reasoned decision of this Court in Hukum Chand Deswal v. Satish Raj Deswal, 2020 SCC Online SC 438 wherein the celebrated judgment in Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj, (2014) 16 SCC 204, has been quoted. The following paragraphs would govern the aforesaid principle:
"20. At the outset, we must advert to the contours delineated by this court for initiating civil contempt action in Ram Kishan vs. Tarun Bajaj & Ors. In paragraphs 11, 12 and 15 of the reported decision, this Court noted thus: "
11. The contempt jurisdiction conferred on to the law courts power to punish an offender for his wilful disobedience/contumacious conduct or obstruction to the majesty of law, for the Page 14 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:50:12 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/360/2023 ORDER DATED: 25/04/2023 undefined reason that respect and authority commanded by the courts of law are the greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizen that his rights shall be protected and the entire democratic fabric of the society 5 (2014) 16 SCC 204 18 will crumble down if the respect of the judiciary is undermined. Undoubtedly, the contempt jurisdiction is a powerful weapon in the hands of the courts of law but that by itself operates as a string of caution and unless, thus, otherwise satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, it would neither be fair nor reasonable for the law courts to exercise jurisdiction under the Act. The proceedings are quasi criminal in nature, and therefore, standard of proof required in these proceedings is beyond all reasonable doubt. It would rather be hazardous to impose sentence for contempt on the authorities in exercise of the contempt jurisdiction on mere probabilities. (Vide V.G. Nigam v. Kedar Nath Gupta, (1992) 4 SCC 697, Chhotu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati, (2001) 7 SCC 530, Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh, (2002) 4 SCC 21, Bank of Baroda v. Sadruddin Hasan Daya, (2004) 1 SCC 360, Sahdeo v. State of U.P., (2010) 3 SCC 705 and National Fertilizers Ltd. v. Tuncay Alankus, (2013) 9 SCC 600.
12. Thus, in order to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that disobedience of the order is "wilful". The word "wilful" introduces a mental element and hence, requires looking into the mind of a person/contemnor by gauging his actions, which is an indication of one's state of mind. "Wilful" means knowingly intentional, conscious, calculated and deliberate with full knowledge of consequences flowing therefrom. It excludes casual, accidental, bona fide or unintentional acts or genuine inability. Wilful acts does not Page 15 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:50:12 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/360/2023 ORDER DATED: 25/04/2023 undefined encompass involuntarily or negligent actions. The act has to be done with a "bad purpose or without justifiable excuse or stubbornly, obstinately or perversely". Wilful act is to be distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. It does not include any act done negligently or involuntarily. The deliberate conduct of a person means that he knows what he is doing and intends to do the same. Therefore, there has to be a calculated action with evil motive on his part. Even if there is a disobedience of an order, but such disobedience is the result of some compelling circumstances under which it was not possible for the contemnor to comply with the order, the contemnor cannot be punished. "Committal or sequestration will not be ordered unless contempt involves a degree of default or misconduct." (Vide S. Sundaram Pillai v. V.R. Attabiraman, (1985) 1 SCC 591, Rakapalli Raja Ram Gopala Rao v. Naragani Govinda Sehararao, (1989) 4 SCC 255, Niaz Mohammad v. State of 19 Haryana, (1994) 6 SCC 332, Chordia Automobiles v. S. Moosa, (2000) 3 SCC 282, Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha, (2003) 11 SCC 1, State of Orissa v. Mohd. Illiyas, (2006) 1 SCC 275 and Uniworth Textiles Ltd. v. CCE, (2013) 9 SCC
15. It is well settled principle of law that if two interpretations are possible, and if the action is not contumacious, a contempt proceeding would not be maintainable. The effect and purport of the order is to be taken into consideration and the same must be read in its entirety. Therefore, the element of willingness is an indispensable requirement to bring home the charge within the meaning of the Act. [See Sushila Raje Holkar v. Anil Kak, (2008) 14 SCC 392 and Three Cheers Entertainment (P) Ltd. Page 16 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:50:12 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/360/2023 ORDER DATED: 25/04/2023 undefined v. CESC Ltd., (2008) 16 SCC 592."
21. Similarly, in R.N. Dey & Ors. vs. Bhagyabati Pramanik & Ors., this Court expounded in paragraph 7 as follows:
"7. We may reiterate that 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 the court is to be exercised for maintenance of the court's dignity and majesty of law. Further, an aggrieved party has no right to insist that the 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 6 (2000) 4 SCC 400 20 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."
xxx xxx xxx Page 17 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:50:12 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/360/2023 ORDER DATED: 25/04/2023 undefined
25. Pertinently, the special leave petitions were filed by the respondent against the order dated 28.1.2019, which as aforesaid, did not deal with the question regarding the monthly rent payable by the respondent but explicitly left the parties to pursue the same before the executing Court. The plaintiff/petitioner having acquiesced of that observation of the High Court, cannot be allowed to contend to the contrary. This Court in Jhareswar Prasad Paul & Anr. vs. Tarak Nath Ganguly & Ors., in paragraph 11, opined thus:
"11. ... The court exercising contempt jurisdiction is not entitled to enter into questions which have not been dealt with and decided in the judgment or order, violation of which is alleged by the applicant. The court has to consider the direction issued in the judgment or order and not to consider the question as to what the judgment or order should have contained. At the cost of repetition, 7 (2002) 5 SCC 352 23 be it stated here that the court exercising contempt jurisdiction is primarily concerned with the question of contumacious conduct of the party, which is alleged to have committed deliberate default in complying with the directions in the judgment or order. If the judgment or order does not contain any specific direction regarding a matter or if there is any ambiguity in the directions issued therein then it will be better to direct the parties to approach the court which disposed of the matter for clarification of the order instead of the court exercising contempt jurisdiction taking upon itself the power to decide the original proceeding in a manner not dealt with by the court passing the judgment or order. If this limitation is borne in mind then criticisms which are sometimes levelled against the Page 18 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:50:12 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/360/2023 ORDER DATED: 25/04/2023 undefined courts exercising contempt of court jurisdiction "that it has exceeded its powers in granting substantive relief and issuing a direction regarding the same without proper adjudication of the dispute" in its entirety can be avoided. This will also avoid multiplicity of proceedings because the party which is prejudicially affected by the judgment or order passed in the contempt proceeding and granting relief and issuing fresh directions is likely to challenge that order and that may give rise to another round of litigation arising from a proceeding which is intended to maintain the majesty and image of courts."
xx xxx xxx
26. Thus understood, we find force in the explanation offered by the respondent that as per its bona fide understanding, there was no outstanding dues payable to the petitioner. Moreover, as observed by the High Court, these aspects could be answered by the executing Court if the parties pursue their claim(s) before it in that regard. Suffice it to observe that it is not a case of intentional violation or wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court to initiate contempt action against the respondent. Instead, we hold that it would be open to the parties to pursue their claim(s) in execution proceedings or any other proceedings, as may be permissible in law in respect of the issue(s) under consideration. In such proceedings, all aspects can be considered by the concerned forum/Court on merits in accordance with law. We say no more.
27. Reverting to the allegation about damage caused to the suit property by the respondent at the time of vacating the same, in our Page 19 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:50:12 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/360/2023 ORDER DATED: 25/04/2023 undefined opinion, the respondent has made out a formidable case that it did not cause any damage, much less permanent damage to the structure in the suit property. Whereas, the petitioner was relying on photographs concerning the debris on the site left behind at the time of vacating the suit property. The debris cannot cause damage and it is certainly not a case of defacement of the suit property. That position is reinforced from the fact that the water park in the suit premises was started and became fully functional within 2-3 months. Viewed thus, it is rightly urged that it can be safely assumed that no damage was caused by the respondent to the structure in question. Minor repairs required to be carried out by the petitioner for making the water park functional cannot be painted as intentional disobedience of the order of this Court. In any case, that being a complex question of fact, need not be adjudicated in the contempt proceedings. We leave it open to the petitioner to pursue even that claim in execution proceedings or such other proceedings as may be permissible in law. We may not be understood to have expressed any final opinion in respect of condition of the suit premises, whilst handing over possession to the petitioner. We hold that even this issue under consideration does not warrant initiation of contempt action against the respondent."
9. In view of the aforesaid peculiar background of facts and in view of the circumstances prevailing on record in consonance with the proposition of law laid down as indicated above, we are of the opinion that continuance of contempt proceedings would Page 20 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:50:12 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/360/2023 ORDER DATED: 25/04/2023 undefined not be desirable in the interest of justice and as such, we deem it proper to drop the present contempt proceedings. However, while parting with the present order, we put a word of caution upon the respondent authority to act with vigil and with full responsibility to adhere to the orders passed by the Court in future and we hope and trust that the authorities would keep the same in mind and will not continue such inadvertence in future.
10. Accordingly, the present contempt petition stands disposed of. Notice is discharged.
(ASHUTOSH SHASTRI, J) (J. C. DOSHI,J) phalguni Page 21 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:50:12 IST 2023