Karnataka High Court
C Vanitha vs D Srinivas on 23 October, 2024
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:42744-DB
CCC No. 100 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 100 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
1. C VANITHA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
D/O H CHANDRAPPA
R/AT CHIKKATHOGURU VILLAGE
ELECTRONIC CITY POST
BENGALURU-560 100.
2. C KAVYA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
D/O H CHANDRAPPA
R/AT NO.210, HIMAGIRI NVILLA
Digitally 'F' CROSS, GOTTIGERE POST
signed by BANNERGHATTA ROAD
SUMATHY BENGALURU-560 080.
KANNAN
Location:
High Court 3. C. NEETHA
of Karnataka AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
D/O H CHANDRAPPA
R/AT NO.210, HIMAGIRI VILLA
'F' CROSS GOTTIGERE PSOT
BANNERGHATTA ROAD
BENGALURU-560 080.
...COMPLAINANTS
(BY SRI. NAGARAJA S - ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:42744-DB
CCC No. 100 of 2020
AND:
D SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
S/O D JANARDHAN
MANAGING PARTNER
M/S DS AND JAKS CONSTRUCITONS
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
HAVING PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS
AT FLAT NO.201, II FLOOR
GREEN GLEN LAYOUT, OUTER RING ROAD
BELLANDUR, BENGALURU-560 103.
PRESENTLY HAVING ITS
OFFICE AT NO.12/1
NEEDS PROJECT 276
NEXT TO CLASSIC BENCH MARK APARTMENT
KALENAAGRAHARA
KAMMANAHALLI MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU-560 076.
...ACCUSED
(BY SRI. C M NAGABUSHANA - ADVOCATE)
THIS CCC FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 PRAYING TO INITIATE
ACTION AND PUNISH THE ACCUSED AND ATTACH THE SAID
FLATS FOR HAVING WILLFULLY DISOBEYED THE ORDER OF
THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT DATED 03.01.2018, CONFIRMED
ON 30.01.2019 AT ANNEXURE-D IN R.F.A.NO.1/2018.
THIS CCC, COMING ON FOR HEAR BEFORE CHARGE,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:42744-DB
CCC No. 100 of 2020
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR)
This Contempt Petition is filed by the complainants
against the order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in RFA No.1/2018 dated 03.01.2018, which was
further confirmed by order dated 30.01.2019.
2. Heard the learned counsel Shri Nagaraja S for
complainants and the learned counsel Shri C.M.
Nagabhushan for the respondent / accused.
3. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court, by its order
dated 03.01.2018 in RFA No.1/2018, had granted interim
stay of the impugned judgment and decree subject to the
condition that the appellant / accused herein, should not
encumber or alienate any portion of Item No.5 of the suit
schedule property bearing Sy.No.12/1 measuring 23
guntas. The said order was also confirmed by its further
order dated 30.01.2019.
4. This contempt petition has been initiated keeping
in view Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act
NC: 2024:KHC:42744-DB
inclusive of Article 215 of the Constitution of India. The
learned counsel for complainants contends that the
respondent / accused, with a malafide and dishonest
intention, to deprive the interest of the complainants and
to cause harassment to them, has created sale deeds. It
is further contended that the accused / respondents
though being aware of the institution of the suit, has
intentionally avoided to appear with a malafide intention to
delay and drag the suit and in the meantime to put up
construction and accordingly has proceeded to construct
14 floors, that too against the approved building plan. In
spite of the same, the accused had filed the appeal stating
that no notice was served upon them though notice was
duly served upon them and the service was also held
sufficient. Hence, the learned counsel for the
complainants prays to initiate action against the accused
and to attach the flats for having willfully disobeyed the
order of this Court dated 03.01.2018.
5. In support of his contention, learned counsel for
complainants has facilitated the reliance in the case of
NC: 2024:KHC:42744-DB
V.S. PRASAD vs. H.L. JAYANARASIMHA AND OTHERS
(ILR 2000 KAR 4335 wherein in the said judgment,
addressing the scope of Sections 11 and 12 of the
Contempt of Courts Act relating to the suit for recovery of
money, the High Court had directed the first defendant /
respondent not to alienate or in any way encumber the
schedule property in an appeal against the order rejecting
the application for attachment of the schedule property
before judgment.
6. However, the proceeding in O.S.No.2901/2016 has
been initiated by the plaintiff / C. Vanita and others
against the defendants Chandrappa and M/s DS and JAKS
Construction, a partnership firm being represented by the
Managing Director namely D. Srinivas. However, in the
aforesaid original proceeding, the first defendant
Chandrappa is none other than the father of the plaintiffs
namely Vanita and two others. The Trial Court in the
aforesaid proceeding in O.S.NO.2901/2016, has
considered the evidence of PW-1 / Smt. C. Vanita and the
documents at Exhibits P1 to P13. Exhibit P1 is the
NC: 2024:KHC:42744-DB
affidavit of the genealogical tree, Exhibit P2 is the Partition
Deed, Exhibit P3 is the Mutation copy, Exhibits P4 to P8
are the RTC extracts, Exhibit P9 is the Joint Development
Agreement, Exhibit P10 is the Rectification Deed of JDA,
Exhibits P11 and P12 are the confirmation of JDA, Exhibit
P13 is the Property extract. Based upon these exhibited
documents as well as the evidence of PW-1, a judgment
was rendered by the Trial Court in O.S.No.2901/2016 by
order dated 23.09.2017 vide Annexure-"A".
7. Subsequent to rendering a judgment and decree,
the aggrieved party / accused herein, had preferred an
appeal before the Appellate Court in RFA No.1/2018
wherein by order dated 03.09.2024, the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court has allowed the appeal and has
thereby set aside the judgment dated 23.09.2017 passed
in O.S.No.2901/2016 and has remanded the matter back
to the Trial Court to consider the same in accordance with
law by giving an opportunity of hearing to both the
parties.
NC: 2024:KHC:42744-DB
8. This Contempt Petition is filed challenging the
interim order passed dated 03.01.2018 passed in RFA
No.1/2018 stating that there is disobedience of the order
passed by the co-ordinate Bench in the aforesaid appeal.
But the appeal itself having been disposed of by
considering the grounds urged by the parties, the relief
sought for in the petition would not survive for
consideration. However, proceeding in O.S.No.2901/2016
is pending consideration in respect of the issues that
emerged between the parties relating to the suit schedule
properties depicted therein.
9. Though learned counsel for the complainants
facilitated the aforesaid reliance for seeking intervention,
but the said reliance relates to Sections 11 and 12 of the
Contempt of Courts Act in a suit for recovery of money.
But the instant case relates to initiation of contempt
proceedings against the respondent / accused in respect of
the interim order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this
Court. But the said interim order has merged with the
main appeal by rendering a judgment. Therefore, learned
NC: 2024:KHC:42744-DB
counsel Shri C.M. Nagabhushan for the respondent
submits that the said reliance which has been facilitated
by the learned counsel for the complainants will not assist
in any way to the complainants relating to taking action
against the respondent for violation of the interim order
passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
10. Hence, without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the matter wherein Original Suit is pending
adjudication between the parties to the proceedings before
the Trial Court, we are of the view that the present
Contempt proceedings, do not survive for consideration.
Accordingly, the contempt proceedings are hereby
dropped.
Sd/-
(K.SOMASHEKAR)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
KS
