Karnataka High Court
Sri C Jayaram vs Sri Vasu on 21 September, 2017
Author: Jayant Patel
Bench: Jayant Patel
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2017
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL
C.C.C. No.891 OF 2017 (CIVIL)
BETWEEN:
Sri. C. Jayaram,
Aged about 62 years,
S/o Late C. Chikkathammaiah,
Agriculturist,
R/at No. 2320/A,
Vinayaka Nagar,
3rd Main, 2nd Cross,
Mysuru 570 012.
... Complainant
(By. Sri. P.A. Kulkarni, Adv.)
AND:
1. Sri. Vasu,
S/o Late Channaiah,
Through Sri. Ritesh Gowda M.V.
Claiming to be GPA holder of Sri. Vasu.
R/o No.16, Temple Street,
Jayalakshmipuram,
Mysuru 570 012.
-2-
Presently stated to be R/at
No. 51, 6th Main, 3rd Block,
BSNL Office Road,
Jayalakshmipuram,
Mysuru 570 012.
2. Sri. Ritesh Gowda M.V.
S/o Sri. Vasu,
Claiming to be GPA holder of Sri. Vasu,
R/at No. 51, 6th Main,
3rd Block, BSNL Office Road,
Jayalakshmipuram,
Mysuru 570 012.
... Accused
(By Sri. R. Subramanya, Adv. for Accused.
V/o dt. 11/7/2017, A2 is deleted.)
This CCC is filed under Article 215 of the
Constitution of India, R/w Sections 11 and 12 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, by the complainant, praying
to initiate contempt proceedings against the
respondents/accused 1 and 2 herein and to punish them
for continued disobedience of the order dated 12.06.2013
passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.A. No. 8227/2012 (ULC)
Annexure-C2, as per Section 11 and 12 of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971.
This CCC coming on for orders this day, Jayant
Patel, J., passed the following:-
ORDER
The basis of the present contempt proceedings is the alleged misuse of the process of court in spite of the fact that Writ Appeal is pending before the Division Bench of -3- this Court in W.A.No.8416/2012 and the interim order to maintain status quo was also in operation. This matter was heard on the earlier occasion and this Court on 6.9.2017, had passed the following order:
"We have heard Mr.P.A. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the complainant and Mr.Subramanya R for the accused.
2. It prima facie appears that the factum of pendency of the Writ Appeal and the interim order passed in the Writ Appeal as well as the earlier factum of Writ Petition and the orders passed therein are suppressed by the accused in O.S.No.530/2017 and by misuse of process of law, the interim order dated 28.04.2016 is procured by the petitioner. Not only that but under the guise of the interim order, new compound walls is constructed by the accused. Thereafter, when the interim order was to be confirmed, accused has disclosed the fact of the interim order passed by this Court in the Writ Appeal and the pendency of the Writ Appeal. The Civil Court has continued with the injunction on condition that the accused shall -4- not put up any permanent structure in the plaint schedule property.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the accused by relying upon the affidavit filed in the present proceeding and more particularly, paragraph 10 of the said affidavit has stated that the accused is undertaking before this Court that he will not put up any construction or permanent structure on the site in question during the subsistence and the operation of the status-quo order granted by this Hon'ble Court and it has been further declared by the learned counsel appearing for the accused that he has advised his client to withdraw the suit."
4. The genuineness of the accused regarding the aforesaid declaration can be accepted, if the suit is withdrawn, consequently the interim injunction may also go but the benefit already procured after the passing of the interim injunction by way of making of compound wall is undone by maintaining status-quo ante i.e., by removal of the compound wall.
5. We would have further passed the order but, at this stage learned counsel for the -5- accused seeks time to get appropriate instructions from his client.
6. Hence, put up the matter on 14.09.2017. On that day, the accused shall remain personally present before the Court. If the appropriate declaration for restoring the status-quo is made, the Court may take a lenient view but, if not made, the Court may be required to take strict view of the matter.
7. Learned counsel for the accused to communicate the order to his client.
2. Thereafter again, the matter was considered before this Court on 14.09.2017 and following order was passed:
"Accused are present before the Court. Mr. Subramanya R., learned counsel for the accused states that, the suit has been withdrawn on 11.9.2017. By dismantling the compound wall already made, status-quo ante shall be restored and the appropriate declaration and the photographs shall be produced before this Court.
Put up on 21.9.2017."-6-
3. Today, the learned counsel appearing for the accused has tendered photographs showing that the status-quo ante has been restored and has also produced the order sheet of the court below showing that the civil suit is also withdrawn.
4. Mr. P.A. Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the complainant has stated before us that the status-quo ante as per the order of this court is restored, but there is no semblance from the part of the accused even to tender an unconditional apology for the alleged breach and misuse of the process of law.
5. Mr. R. Subramanya, learned counsel appearing for the accused submitted that accused is present before the court and he shall file an unconditional apology during the course of the day. He further declared that in order to avoid other consequences for the so-called misuse of the process of law and the alleged breach of the order of status-quo, the accused is ready to pay an amount as penalty or cost as may be ordered by this Court. It was -7- submitted that as per the suggestion of the learned counsel appearing for the complainant, the accused is ready to pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- to Karnataka State Advocates' Clerks' Benevolent Trust and Rs.15,000/- to the State Legal Services Authority for the benefit of the poor litigants, if so directed by this Court. It was also submitted that liberty may be reserved to the accused to move appropriate application in W.A.No.8227/2012 for protection of the site in question, which as per the accused is allotted by the Development Authority to the accused.
6. In our view, when an attempt is made on the part of the accused to comply with the order by restoring the status-quo ante and by withdrawal of the suit, the unconditional apology can be accepted, but, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the accused should pay the appropriate amount as penalty for the alleged breach in compliance of the order. We would have further considered the matter, but since the declaration has been made on behalf of the accused to pay -8- the amount of Rs.15,000/- as desired by the complainant to the Karnataka State Advocates' Clerks' Benevolent Trust and a further sum of Rs.15,000/- to the State Legal Services Authority for the benefit of the poor litigants, a lenient view can be taken. Hence, the following order:
7. The status-quo ante is restored and the civil suit is withdrawn. Unconditional apology of the accused is accepted on condition that,
(i) Accused pays an amount of Rs.15,000/- within three weeks from today to the Karnataka State Advocates' Clerks' Benevolent Trust;
(ii) Accused pays an amount of Rs.15,000/- with the State Legal Services Authority to be utilized for the welfare of the poor litigants.
8. Upon compliance of the aforesaid conditions, the present proceedings are not required to be continued further, subject to the aforesaid observation and direction disposed off accordingly and with the liberty that it would be open to the accused to move appropriate application in -9- W.A.No.8227/2012 for protection of the site or the property, in accordance with law. But, at that stage, rights and contentions of the complainant as well as accused and all parties to the proceedings in the writ appeal shall remain open to be considered, in accordance with law.
(JAYANT PATEL) JUDGE (B.A. PATIL) JUDGE KS Note:
As per the orders passed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice on 7.10.2017 in the Note Sheet, Hon'ble Sri Justice B.S.Patil is nominated for signing the unsigned order dated 21.09.2017 passed by the Hon'ble Sri Justice Jayant Patel and Hon'ble Sri Justice B.A.Patil in CCC.No.891/2017 in the light of Rule 6(2) of the Karnataka High Court Rules,
- 10 -
1959, Chapter XVI and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s.Gem Travels Vs.Syndicate Bank, reported in ILR 1995 KAR 3063.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE