Karnataka High Court
Sri T R Shadaksharappa S/O Rudrappa vs Sri R. Basappa S/O Lae R Dodda Basappa on 4 July, 2024
Author: S G Pandit
Bench: S G Pandit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9141-DB
CCC No. 100279 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.100279 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI. T.R. SHADAKSHARAPPA S/O. RUDRAPPA,
AGE. 70 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. TOOLADAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ. KOTTUR,
DIST. VIJAYANAGAR.
- COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI R. BASAPPA S/O. LATE R.DODDA BASAPPA,
AGE. 72 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
2. SRI R. THIPPESWAMY S/O. LATE DODDA BASAPPA,
AGE. 79 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
BOTH ARE R/O. TOOLADAHALLI VILLAGE,
TQ. KOTTUR, DIST. VIJAYANAGAR.
- ACCUSED
(BY SRI LAXMAN T.MANTAGANI, ADVOCATE FOR A1 AND A2)
Digitally signed by
VINAYAKA B V THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE
Location: HIGH CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, R/W. ARTICLE 215 OF
COURT OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,1950, PLEASED TO EXERCISE ITS
KARNATAKA JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS
ACT AND TO, INITIATED AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR
DISREGARDING AND DISOBEYING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 20.01.2012 IN O.S.NO.85/2005 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
CIVIL JUDGE KUDLIGI, CONFIRMING IN R.A.NO.15/2012 PASSED BY
THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUDLIGI AND
FURTHER CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT BY THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.06.2022 IN
R.S.A.NO.100091/2015, VIDE ANNEXURE B, C AND E RESPECTIVELY
AND ETC.,
THIS CCC, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
S G PANDIT, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9141-DB
CCC No. 100279 of 2023
ORDER
This contempt petition is filed u/S 11 and 12 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short 'Act') praying to
initiate contempt proceedings against the accused for initiating
proceedings disregarding the earlier judgment and decree
dated 20.01.2012 in O.S. No. 85/2005 confirmed in R.A. No.
15/2012 and R.S.A. No. 100091/2015.
2. Heard Sri Hanumanthareddy Sahukar, learned counsel for
complainant and Sri Laxman T. Mantagani, learned counsel for
accused. Perused contempt petition papers.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant would submit that
action of the respondent-accused persons in filing suit after suit
on the same cause of action disregarding the earlier judgment
and decree in O.S. No. 85/2005 confirmed in R.A. No. 15/2012
and R.S.A. No. 100091/2015 would amount to contempt within
the meaning of Sec. 2(b) of the Act.
4. Learned counsel would invite attention of this Court to
Sec. 2(b) of the Act, i.e. definition of Civil Contempt and
submits that the action of the respondent-accused would fall
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9141-DB
within 'other process of law' and submits that it is a fit case to
initiate contempt proceedings against the respondent-accused.
5. Per contra, Sri Laxman T. Mantagani, learned counsel for
respondent-accused submits that the respondent-accused have
not committed any contempt much less civil contempt as
alleged by the complainant. He would submit that the
allegations made by the complainant would not amount to civil
contempt and therefore he prays for dismissal of the complaint.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on
perusal of the entire averments made in the contempt petition,
we are of the view that the alleged action by the respondent-
accused would not amount to civil contempt as defined u/S
2(b) of the Act. Filing of suit after suit or application after
application would fall u/S 2(c) of the Act.
7. A co-ordinate bench of this Court in a case reported in
ILR 1990 KAR 4179 (Vijaya Bank Employees Housing co-
operative Society Ltd. Vs. Muneerappa) has observed that filing
suit after suit and application after application could not but be
characterized as daring raid on Court and abuse of process of
Court. Thus it is held that said action would fall within Sec.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9141-DB
2(c) of the Act. Further it observed that whether the action of
the accused is calculated to obstruct the due process of a
judicial proceeding and administration of justice, it would
amount to criminal contempt of court.
8. Thus in the facts and circumstances of the case we are of
the opinion that the allegations of the complainant against the
respondent-accused would not fall within Sec. 2(b) and Sec. 11
and 12 of the Act. Accordingly, the contempt proceedings
stand disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
BVV
