Karnataka High Court
Manjula Devi vs Banumathi @ Shakila Banu on 29 January, 2025
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:4023-DB
CCC No. 1152 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 1152 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. MANJULA DEVI
W/O LATE MOHAN LAL JAIN
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
2. VINOD KUMAR
S/O LATE MOHAN LAL JAIN
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
3. ALKESH KUMAR
S/O LATE MOHAN LAL JAIN
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
Digitally signed
by SUMATHY
KANNAN 4. RAKESH KUMAR
Location: HIGH S/O LATE MOHAN LAL JAIN
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
ALL ARE REP. BY GPA HOLDER
COMPLAINANT NO.2
ALL ARE R/O CANARA BANK ROAD
CHIKKAMAGALURU
CHIKKAMAGALURU 577101.
...COMPLAINANTS
(BY MS. TEJASWINI - ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SIDDAPPA B M -
ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:4023-DB
CCC No. 1152 of 2022
AND:
1. BANUMATHI @ SHAKILA BANU
W/O H.S. SANNA SIDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/O DONIKANA EXTESNION
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT 577 101.
2. RAJESH
S/O H.S. SANNA SIDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/O DONIKANA EXTESNION
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT 577 101.
3. MANOJ
S/O H.S. SANNA SIDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/O DONIKANA EXTESNION
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT 577 101.
4. H.S. JAGADISH
S/O LATE SIDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
R/O HIREMANGALURU VILLAGE
CHIKKAMAGALURU 577 102.
5. H.S. RAVIKUMAR
S/O LATE SIDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
R/O HIREMANGALURU VILLAGE
CHIKKAMAGALURU 577 102.
6. KAMALAMMA @ AMMAIAHA
W/O CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
HOUSE WIFE
R/O HIREMAGALURU VILLAGE
CHIKKAMAGALURU 577 102.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:4023-DB
CCC No. 1152 of 2022
7. H.S. HALAMMA
W/O SAGANAIAH
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
R/O MAN ROAD
INDAVARA VILLAGE AND PSOT
CHIKKAMGALURU TALUK 577 101.
8. JISHAN B S
S/O AHMED CHAN
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/O PAI LAYOUT
NEAR WATER TANK, UPPALLI
CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT.
9. LOKESH N
S/O NARAYANARAO
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/O MUKTA HOME APPLIANCE
M.G. ROAD
CHIKKAMAGALURU.
...ACCUSED
(BY SRI.ABHAY - ADVOCATE FOR SRI SANTHOSH S NAGARALE
- ADVOCATE FOR ACCUSED NO.8 AND 9(VAKALATH FILED ON
29.01.2025)
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF
THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO INITIATE
CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR
HAVING DISOBEYED THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE
COURT IN RFA NO.1128/2021 DATED 07.12.2021 AND PUNISH
THE ACCUSED.
THIS CCC, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:4023-DB
CCC No. 1152 of 2022
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR)
This contempt petition is initiated by complainants
against respondents/accused in view of non-compliance of
the order passed by this Court in RFA.No.1128/2021 dated
07.12.2021.
2. Learned counsel Smt Tejaswini appears for learned
counsel Sri Siddappa B.M who is on record for
complainants. Learned counsel Sri Abhay appears for
learned counsel Sri Santhosh S Nagarale who is on record
for respondents.
3. Learned counsel for complainants submits that
RFA.No.1128/2021 is pending for consideration.
4. However, it is relevant to refer the order rendered
by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
CCC.No.1237/2022 (Civil) dated 26.03.2023 wherein
NC: 2025:KHC:4023-DB
para No.3 indicates as When the order is an interim order,
by its very nature it does not determine rights of the
parties finally. There are no trappings of finality in the
order. In the aforesaid view, this Court is not inclined to
entertain the contempt petition and it is not persuaded to
exercise the power of contempt under the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971. Para No.4 indicates as It will be open
for the complainant to raise all contentions and work out
its rights and remedies in the main proceedings in
accordance with law.
5. It is also relevant to refer the judgment rendered
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Prithawi Nath Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand and
Others reported in (2004) 7 SCC 261 wherein it is
observed that Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Ss.2(b), 11
and 15-disoberdience of interim order-impermissibility-
Even if interim order is subsequently vacated or relief
refused to a party in the main proceeding, held, it cannot
justify disobedience of such interim order by the order
NC: 2025:KHC:4023-DB
party - Constitution of India, Articles 215 and 129 - Civil
Procedure Code, 1908, Order 39 Rule 1.
6. Keeping in view the reliances referred supra as
well as the RFA.No.1128/2021 which is pending for
consideration, this contempt petition does not survive for
consideration for the present and is hereby dropped.
SD/-
(K.SOMASHEKAR)
JUDGE
SD/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
RJ
