Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

As far as the accused is concerned, he has been resisting the acquisition at every stage. Even today he is in possession of the lands. The actual possession was never handed over. May be some records might have been created to that effect.

3. Mr. P. Vishwanatha Shetty, learned Counsel for the complainant, relying on the decision in ADVOCATE-GENERAL, STATE OF BIHAR v. MADHYA PRADESH KHAIR INDUSTRIES 1980(3) SOC 311 would submit that where a party files suit after suit and application after application, to somehow thwart the benefits of the Judgment obtained by the Society, it is nothing more than abuse of process of Court. This is only to circumvent the orders of this Court and that of the Supreme Court. The object is to defeat the fruits of those orders and to render them nugatory. Therefore, action must be taken against the accused for Contempt of Court under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

Their Lordships further pointed out as follows:

"In considering whether the action of the accused amounted to Contempt of Court, the Court must take into, account the whole course of the continuing contumacious conduct of the accused from the very beginning."

Their Lordships also pointed out:

"Application after application was thereafter filed before the same single Judge, everyone of them being designed to circumvent, defeat or nullify the effect of the orders of the Division Benches of that High Court as well as the High Court having the jurisdiction of the case. Every application was a daring 'raid' on the Court and each was an abuse of the process of the Court, calculated to obstruct the due course of a judicial proceedings and the administration of justice which amounted to criminal contempt of Court,"
That puts beyond doubt that the lands vested free from all encumbrances in the complainant-Society. If this be the true position, it is rather impossible to conceive that the accused could still contend that he is in possession of the properties. He filed O.S.No. 5579 of 1988 seeking for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession. How such a suit came to be filed is hard to guess. When the order of status-quo was passed, that was successfully questioned in M.F.A.No. 755 of 1989 by the complainant. After all this, another suit comes to be filed in O.S.No. 1773 of 1990. There again, the same prayer was made, but, strangely without impleading the Society as party-defendant. In that suit, only the office bearers and the contractors were made parties. This ingenuity is something very hard to appreciate. There again, an ex parte order was obtained. These attempts, in our view, namely filing suit after suit and application after application could not but be characterised as daring raid on the Court and an abuse of the process of the Court. To use the words of the ruling of the Supreme Court in , they are undoubtedly calculated to obstruct the due course of a judicial proceeding. The facts in the decision cited above are more or less the same. In the present case, it is worse. After the Supreme Court has rendered a decision, we do not know how the accused go to the Civil Court not only to circumvent the Judgment which is a Judgment of the highest Court and is binding on Civil Court under Article 141 of the Constitution. It even amounts to harass and oppress the other side. Therefore, we hold that there are no bona fides in the filing of the suit.