Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. The learned counsel for the complainant in her argument vehemently contended that in the order dated 8.6.2017, while extending the interim order of status-quo granted earlier, this Court made it clear that the appellant in M.F.A.No.7719 of 2016 i.e., accused herein, shall not proceed with any activity of construction whatsoever either altering, changing, repairing, or otherwise over the terrace of second floor, namely the third floor, till the next date of hearing. Inspite of the specific order of this Court, the accused has proceeded with the construction work. The photographs at Exs.P.5 to 9 clearly establishes that the accused has continued with the construction. Hence, the accused has committed willful disobedience of the order of this Court.

13. The learned counsel for the accused in support of his arguments relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.C. GUPTA v. BIMAL KUMAR DUTTA AND OTHERS reported in (2014) 14 SCC 446 and contended that in order to invoke contempt jurisdiction, that too for willful disobedience, satisfaction of the Court is very much necessary. Relying on this judgment he would submit that the Apex Court has held that since a contempt action being in nature of quasi-criminal proceedings, degree of satisfaction for Court to hold a person guilty of commission of contempt should be beyond reasonable doubt. He also contended that there is no such degree of satisfaction for Court to hold the accused guilty of commission of contempt and the complainant has not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the contempt proceedings cannot be sustained against the accused.

28. In view of the principles laid down in the judgment, this Court has to examine in order to invoke Contempt Act, it is necessary to see the ingredients of Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act. It requires that there must be a willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a Court.

29. Having considered the ingredients of Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, this Court has to consider whether there is any willful disobedience of the order of the Court. We have already pointed out that it is admitted in the cross-examination of D.W.1 that he was aware of the order passed by this Court in M.F.A. vide order dated 9.2.2017. There was an order of status quo to be maintained by both the complainant and the accused. It is also elicited in the cross-examination of D.W.1 that he was aware of the meaning of the word "status quo" i.e., to maintain the property in as-is-where is condition as on the date of the order. The accused also did not dispute the fact that the said order was extended by order dated 8.6.2017. But his contention is that the work was completed prior to 8.6.2017. The accused had taken the contention that the photographs which was produced as Exs.P.5 to 9 are manipulated to suit the convenience of the complainant and when the said defence was taken, the burden lies on the accused to prove the same, the same has not been done. The complainant has produced the photograph with C.D. and if there is any manipulation, as contended by the accused, the same ought to have been proved, but the same has not been done. Mere taking of defence is not enough. There must be some cogent evidence before the Court regarding manipulation.

31. The fact that there was an order dated 9.2.2017 granting an order of status quo and the said order has been subsequently extended vide order dated 8.6.2017 and on reading of Ex.P.4, it is specific that the accused should not take up any nature of work over the terrace of second floor i.e., the third floor. But it is also admitted in the cross-examination of the accused that what is evident in the photograph - Ex.P.19 is only the water proofing of the cement over the metal sheet. The very admission shows that he had undertaken the construction work over and above the second floor. The accused understood the order of status quo to maintain as-is-where is condition as on the date of the order. He also admits that the subsequent order indicates that there should not be any construction over the second floor. The accused made an attempt with regard to his further construction saying that it is only water proofing of the cement over the metal sheet. Hence it is clear that he has taken further construction and did water proofing of the cement over the metal sheet. The very conduct of the accused is nothing but willful disobedience of the Court order. In order to invoke contempt jurisdiction, there must be an order and its violation. The said violation must be a willful disobedience and in this case the accused willfully disobeyed the order which amounts to contempt under section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.