Karnataka High Court
Smt. T. Philomena vs Sri. Mahendra Karle on 9 October, 2023
Bench: Chief Justice, Krishna S Dixit
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:36526-DB
CCC No. 911 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 911 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. T. PHILOMENA
D/O LATE SRI. THOMASAPPA
AND W/O LATE SRI. GABRIEL REDDY,
HOUSEWIFE,
AGED 76 YEARS,
R/AT 91, M.M. REDDY ROAD, H.A. FARM POST,
MARIANNAPALYA, BENGALURU - 560 024.
SINCE DEAD BY THE EXECUTORS
OF HER WILL AND LEGAL HEIRS
1(A) SRI. G. VINCENT THOMAS,
S/O LATE SRI. GABRIEL A.
Digitally signed ALIAS GABRIEL REDDY,
by SHARADA
VANI B BUSINESSMAN
Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1(B) SRI. ROMARIO VINCENT THOMAS,
S/O SRI. G. VINCENT THOMAS,
ABOVE NAMED, ADVOCATE
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.91, M.M.REDDY ROAD,
MARIYANNAPALYA H.A. FARM POST,
BENGALURU - 560 024.
...COMPLAINANTS
(BY SRI. D SA RONALD I.,ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:36526-DB
CCC No. 911 of 2023
AND:
SRI. MAHENDRA KARLE
S/O LATE SRI. L.T. KARLE,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/AT FLAT NO.1-F,
CASTLE ROCK APARTMENTS,
NO.26, I MAIN ROAD,
JAYAMAHAL EXTENSION,
BANGALORE - 560 046.
...ACCUSED
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SECTIONS 10 AND 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, 1971, PRAYING TO TAKE
COGNIZANCE OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED FLOUTING OF THE
COURT INJUNCTION ORDER ON THE PART OF THE ACCUSED
AND COMMITTING CONTEMPT OF COURT BY DISOBEYING AND
VIOLATING THE 5.8.2022 ANNEXURE-B INTERIM ORDER
PASSED ON I.A. NO.2 OF 2020 IN O.S. NO.1629/2020, WHICH
SUIT IS NOW PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE XL ADDL. CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, COURT HALL NO.41,
BENGALURU, ALSO PERMITTING THEIR ADVOCATES ON
RECORD TO PROSECUTE THIS CASE ON THEIR BEHALF.
THIS CCC COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:36526-DB
CCC No. 911 of 2023
ORDER
This complainant alleges the willful violation of the
interim order dated 05.08.2022 passed by the learned XL
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in a
pending suit in O.S.No.1629/2020, whereby the
respondent-sole accused amongst others being the
defendants, is restrained from alienating the subject suit
properties.
2. Learned counsel for the complainant argues
that this court should cognizance of the matter and
summon and try the respondent- accused for the offences
punishable under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971. We pointed out to him this Bench
decision dated 23.01.2023 entered in CCC No.1062/2022
between S.Raghurama Reddy vs. Prathab Reddy &
others 2023 KHC 3822-Division Bench. The Bench has
observed in the said decision that contempt court could
not readily grant indulgence where judgments and decrees
of civil courts are violated, the appropriate remedy being
NC: 2023:KHC:36526-DB
CCC No. 911 of 2023
their execution as provided under the provisions of Order
XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
3. In reply, learned counsel pressed into service
another Division Bench decision of this Court namely,
Kishin T. Panjabi vs. Suresh Kothari ILR 2009 KAR
5034 and had sought for indulgence. We do not find merit
in this invocation inasmuch as what was allegedly violated
was not an order or decree of civil court, but the order
made by a learned Single Judge of this court in MFA
No.7719/2016 C/w MFA No.6323/2016. Secondly, there be
certain circumstances and factual peculiarities that would
set the case apart. It hardly needs to be stated that a
decision is an authority for the proposition that has been
laid down in the fact matrix of a case and not for all that,
that logically follows from what has been so laid down vide
Quinn vs. Leatham, 1901 AC 495.
4. In S.Raghurama Reddy supra, a reference has
been made to the Apex Court decision in Kanwar Singh
Saini vs. High Court of Delhi, (2012) 4 SCC 307 and
two other decisions as well in forming a considered opinion
NC: 2023:KHC:36526-DB
CCC No. 911 of 2023
that ordinarily the contempt courts do not interfere where
the complaint involves violation of orders and decree of
civil court, subject to all just exceptions in which argued
case of the complainant does not fit. This view gains
support from the latest decision of the Apex Court in Ram
Narang V. Ramesh Narang (2021) 15 SCC 338, which
is largely shaped in terms of the observations made in
Kanwar Singh Saini supra. We hardly need to mention that
the contempt proceedings even in civil matters are treated
as being quasi criminal in nature and therefore, there
cannot be initiated as a matter of course.
5. Added to the above, the other alternate and
equally efficacious remedy avails to the complainant in
terms of Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code, for ensuring
compliance of the order and seeking redressal for the
breach. No explanation is offered for not invoking this
efficacious provision, which has been introduced by way of
amendment. True it is that a co-ordinate Bench of this
court in Kishin T.Panjabi supra entertained the complaint
of contempt for the violation of the order made in MFAs.
NC: 2023:KHC:36526-DB
CCC No. 911 of 2023
That was because, the Bench despite moving an
application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code had
not taken any action and therefore, the said application
was withdrawn with liberty to move the contempt court.
Such an essential factor is conspicuously absent in the
case at hands. We cannot speculate as to what would have
happened in Kishin had this factor been absent.
In the above circumstances, we decline interference
in the matter and dispose off this proceeding accordingly.
Liberty is reserved to the complainant to take up
appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. It hardly
needs to be stated that the period of pendency of this case
shall be discounted while computing the period of
limitation for invoking such proceedings.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Snb/
