Karnataka High Court
Revansiddayya vs Aaddaru Srinivasulu And Ors on 26 June, 2025
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3398-DB
CCC No. 200107 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.200107 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
REVANASIDDAYYA
S/O BASAYYA CHINCHOLI,
AGE: 65 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KATAMDEVARAHALLI,
TQ: CHITTAPUR, DIST: KALABURAGI,
KATAMDEVARAHALLI - 585 211.
...COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI RAVINDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR COMPLAINANT)
Digitally signed by
BASALINGAPPA AND:
SHIVARAJ
DHUTTARGAON
Location: HIGH
1. SRI AADDARU SRINIVASULU
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AGE ABOUT: 45 YEARS,
THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
KALABURAGI DISTRICT,
KALABURAGI -585 101.
2. SRI JAGADEVAPPA PALA,
AGE ABOUT: 47 YEARS,
THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR,
KALAGI, TQ: CHITTAPUR,
DIST: KALABURAGI,
KALAGI - 585 312.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3398-DB
CCC No. 200107 of 2025
HC-KAR
3. SRI CHETAN BIDIRI,
AGE ABOUT: 40 YEARS,
THE POLICE INSPECTOR
MUDBOOL POLICE STATION,
MUDBOOL, TQ: CHITTAPUR,
MUDBOOL - 585 312.
4. SHARAN REDDY
S/O GURUNATH REDDY,
AGE ABOUT: 45 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: VENKATESH NAGAR,
NEAR WATER TANK,
KALABURAGI ROAD, CHITTAPUR,
DIST: KALABURAGI,
CHITTAPUR - 5852 11.
5. SRI. RAMU
S/O KASHAPPA BHOVI,
AGE ABOUT: 40 YEARS,
R/O: KATAMDEVARAHALLI,
TQ: CHITTAPUR,
DIST: KALABURAGI,
KATAMDEVARAHALLI - 585 211.
...ACCUSED
(BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR TENGLI, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
R4 & R5 ARE SERVED)
THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT,
1971 R/W ARTICLE 215 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,
PRAYING TO ISSUE ORDERS OR DIRECTIONS, BY PUNISHING
THE ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 5 FOR VIOLATING THE
ORDERS/JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN O.S.NO.48/2009
DATED 27.03.2014, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF CONTEMPT
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3398-DB
CCC No. 200107 of 2025
HC-KAR
OF COURTS ACT, 1971 AND THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WITH COST.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
AND
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
The petitioner/complainant has preferred this petition
for punishing accused Nos.1 to 5 for violating the
judgment and decree passed by the Court of Civil Judge,
Chittapur in O.S.No.48/2009 dated 27.03.2014.
2. Petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.48/2009 against
respondent No.4 and another on the file of the Court of
Civil Judge at Chittapur for the relief of declaration,
permanent injunction and rectification of revenue records
in respect of land bearing Sy.No.21/1, measuring 06 acres
14 guntas of Katamdevarhalli, in Chittapur Taluk (for
short, 'the suit property'). The said suit came to be
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3398-DB
HC-KAR
decreed by the Civil Court on 27.03.2014 holding that the
petitioner/plaintiff is the absolute owner and in possession
of the suit property. The sale deed executed by defendant
No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 was declared to be null
and void and not binding on the plaintiff to the extent of
his land and further, the defendants were restrained by
way of permanent injunction from interfering with the
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by
the petitioner/plaintiff.
3. The instant petition alleging violation of the said
decree passed by the Civil Court is preferred, wherein it is
stated that respondent Nos.4 and 5 inspite of the said
injunction granted in favour of the petitioner herein, has
continued to interfere with the peaceful possession of
plaintiff's land.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
contended that inspite of a complaint having been lodged
with the Police, they have not taken any action, and
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3398-DB
HC-KAR
therefore, he has impleaded them as respondent Nos.1 to
3 in this petition.
5. The decree was passed by the Civil Court on
27.03.2014. According to the plaintiff, respondent Nos.4
and 5 have interfered with the peaceful possession of his
property and therefore, he lodged a complaint with the
Police, but no action was taken. It is contended that all
the respondents have violated the decree passed by the
Civil Court wherein permanent injunction was granted in
his favour.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not
disputed that under Order XXI Rule 32 of CPC, if the party
against whom an injunction order is passed by the Civil
Court, violates such order, then remedy is available by
approaching the Civil Court seeking necessary relief for the
disobedience of the said order. However, relying on a
decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bank of Baroda
Vs. Sadruddin Hasan Daya and Another reported in
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3398-DB
HC-KAR
(2004) 1 SCC 360, he contended that such violation
would also amount to contempt of Court as held by the
Apex Court.
7. We have given our anxious consideration to the
decision of the Apex Court in the above case.
8. In the aforementioned decision, there was an
undertaking given to the Apex Court and a consent decree
was passed. Since there was willful breach of the
undertaking given to the Court, in that circumstances, the
Apex Court held that the same amounts to civil contempt
within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971 and execution of the decree have no
bearing on the contempt committed.
have violated the decree passed, as alleged, remedy is
available to the petitioner under Order XXI Rule 32 of CPC.
When such is the case, instant petition seeking to initiate
contempt proceedings cannot be entertained. Further,
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3398-DB
HC-KAR
there is no direction whatsoever against respondent Nos.1
to 3, to array them as parties to this proceeding. Petition
is mis-conceived and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly,
petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K S HEMALEKHA)
JUDGE
BL
CT:NI
