Manipur High Court
Kangjam Jayanta Singh vs Lisham Anilkumar Singh & 5 Ors on 5 June, 2025
1
Digitally signed by
JOHN JOHN TELEN KOM
TELEN KOM Date: 2025.06.12
10:31:40 +05'30'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
Cont.Cas(C)J2 No.4 of 2024
Kangjam Jayanta Singh
Petitioner
Vs.
Lisham Anilkumar Singh & 5 Ors.
Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. KEMPAIAH SOMASHEKAR
(O R D E R)
05.06.2025.
This contempt petition has been initiated by the complainant as
under section 10 & 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article
and Article 215 of the Constitution of India read-with Rule 9 of the Contempt
of Courts(Manipur High Court) Rules, 2019.
Heard the learned senior counsel for the
complainant/petitioner namely, Mr. S. Biswajit Meitei and so also the
senior counsel for the respondents/accused namely, Mr. M. Rarry and
inclusive of the learned counsel for respondent No.6 namely, Mr. Md
Ajmail Hussain.
Whereas in this contempt proceeding seeking for taking action
against the respondents/accused for willful disobedience of the order and
also for violating the court's decree/orders/judgement dated 21.04.2022
rendered by the Court of the District Judge, Imphal East in RFA No.11 of
2020. Subsequent to the rendering of the order by the District Judge, Imphal
East, the order rendered by the Executing Court in EP No.19 of 2022.
Whereas keeping in view the submission made by the learned
senior counsel for the parties in this contempt proceeding and so also keeping
in view the issue in between the complainant and respondents/accused are
concerned, it is deemed appropriate to refer that the willful and deliberately
disobedience of the orders rendered by the Executing Court dated
10.08.2024, 11.08.2024 and 16.10.2024 in Execution Case No.9 of 2022
rendered by the Court of Civil Judge(Senior Division), Imphal East by
dismantling/destroying wall fencing constructed by the Court Bailiff on
16.10.2022.
Whereas the learned senior counsel for the complainant in this
matter referred to the provision of section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971. However, keeping in view the issue between the complainant and the
respondents, it is deemed appropriate to refer to section 2 of the Contempt
of Courts Act, 1971 (b) reads as thus.
(b). "civil contempt" means willful disobedience to any
judgement, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or willful
breach of an undertaking given to a court.
Apart from the aforesaid section of the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971 and whereby the learned senior counsel for the complainant in this
matter referred to C-Civil Contempt of High Court of Manipur Rules, 2019 and
specifically referred to Rule 9 in the case of civil contempt other than a
contempt referred to Section 14, the High Court may take action which reads
as thus:
(a) on its own motion; or
(b) on a petition presented by the part aggrieved; or
(c) in the case of any civil contempt of a subordinate court on a
reference made to it by that court.
However, it is clarified that the plaintiff has initiated the suit
against the defendant as in OS No.5 of 2014 and the aforesaid suit was ended
by rendering the judgement & decree and the judgement and decree has
been challenged before the First Appellate Court i.e. Court of District Judge
as related the proceeding in RFA No.11 of 2020 and subsequent to the
judgement rendered by the First Appellate Court as Regular First Appeal and
whereby before the District & Sessions Judge of Imphal East challenging the
judgment & decree rendered by the court of Civil Judge(Senior Division)
Imphal East dated 18.03.2022, wherein the judgement & decree has been
modified in the judgment rendered by the Regular First Appellate Court i.e.
RFA No.11 of 2020 subsequent to the rendering the judgement & decree by
the aforesaid Court and wherein the decree holder has initiated the Execution
proceeding as EP No.19 of 2022 and wherein there is an order rendered by
the Executing Court dated 05.12.2022 and wherein by the Executing Court
has directed the SDC, Heingang to depute the staffs of SDC/IE, Heingang to
ensure the compliance of Judgement & Decree of both the Civil Courts.
However, subsequent to rendering an order by the Executing Court relating
to the Judgement and Decree rendered by the Civil Judge Senior Division
and thereafter modified the order rendered by the First Appellate Court in the
aforesaid proceeding in RFA No.11 of 2020.
However, the learned senior counsel for the
respondents/accused namely, Mr. S. Biswajit Meitei submitting that the
Regular proceeding in RSA No.6 of 2024 has been filed and the same is yet
under consideration of the dispute relating to the Judgement and Decree
rendered by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Imphal East.
Whereas, the learned senior counsel for the complainant in this
matter forcefully submitting relating to the definition of section 2(b) of
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. However the aforesaid provision of law
indicates that willful disobedience to any judgement, decree, direction, order,
writ or other process of a court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a
court and the contempt proceeding has to be taken on record and persuade
the matter against the respondents/accused. However, section 2(b) of the
Contempt of Courts Act, it is a punitive/punishment in nature but this
proceeding has been initiated by the complainant relating to the orders
rendered by the Executing Court and wherein the Executing Court has
passed an order on 05.12.2022 and therefore, the learned senior counsel for
the complainant in this matter forcefully submitting for consideration the list
of dates and events in a chronological. However, the learned senior counsel
for the complainant in this matter referred that the Bailiff of the Court of the
Civil Judge (Senior Division) Imphal East along with the two court staff with
the police protection and in presence of police personnel, in compliance of
the direction issued by the learned Civil Judge constructed at 10:30 am, the
remaining portion of the fencing wall, which was left incomplete on
11.08.2024 and due threat and mob mobilized by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4
herein, causing obstruction in complying with the court order. Execution of
Court order was complete as per law. However, in the night of 16.10.2024,
the respondents with the respondent No.6 and 7 dismantled the said
remaining wall fencing erected by the Court Bailiff as per direction and the
same has been indicating in detail in the list of dates and events but the
learned senior counsel for the complainant in this matter specifically referred
the events and dates of 16.10.2024 in respect of the initiation of the contempt
proceeding against the respondents/accused.
However, the learned senior counsel namely, Mr. S. Biswajit
Meitei for the respondents/accused in this matter is submitting relating to the
scope of the Rule 9 of the High Court of Manipur Rules, 2019 and wherein
the said senior counsel in this matter submitting that even though the
contempt proceeding has initiated before this Court, but the decree holder
complainant/petitioner has not approached the court having the jurisdiction to
refer this matter to this Court but keeping in view the Rule 9 referred in section
14 of the High Court, it may take action even on its own motion; or on a
petition presented by the party aggrieved and in the case of any civil contempt
of a subordinate court on a reference made to it by that court. However, this
contempt proceeding has been initiated keeping in view the Rules 9 (a), (b)
& (c) and even in the aforesaid (c) reveals as reference made to it by the
court, it means to say that where the proceeding has been initiated before the
court having the jurisdiction i.e. subordinate court in the district judiciary but
(a) it is on its own motion and, (b) on a petition presented by the party
aggrieved but these contentions are concerned, the learned senior counsel
for the complainant in this matter the aforesaid rule that even on its own
motion also be registered the contempt proceeding as keeping in view the
provision of section 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act and even on a petition
presented by the party aggrieved but in this matter, the party aggrieved
means the decree holder before the executing court and more so he being
the complainant in this matter and wherein he has initiated the contempt
proceeding keeping in view the section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971. However this proceeding has been initiated for disobedience of the
order rendered by the Executing court and also referred to the order rendered
by the First Appellate Court which has been initiated and therefore, keeping
in view the submission forcefully made by the learned senior counsel for the
complainant and equally the counter argument advanced by the learned
senior for the respondents/accused inclusive of the counsel for the
respondent No.6 in this matter but the counsel for the respondent No.6
submitting that there was no role of the respondent No.6 but the dates and
events which has referred by the learned senior counsel for the complainant
referred the role of the respondent No.6 who is arrayed as a
respondent/accused in this contempt proceeding to take action against him.
However, this contempt proceeding has been initiated keeping
in view the provision of Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971
and inclusive of Rule 9 and more so the provision of section 10 & 12 of the
Contempt of Courts Act inclusive of Article 129 and Article 215 of the
Constitution of India. Wherein as keeping in view of all these provisions are
concerned, it is deemed appropriate to state that even at this stage, it cannot
be referred for dwelling in detail of the issues in between the complainant and
the respondents/accused, it is only for the disobedience of the orders
rendered by the Executing court and even to the judgement and decree has
been modified by the First Appellate Court as where the Regular First Appeal
proceeding has been initiated and therefore, it is deemed appropriate that the
ingredients in respect of section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
would arise in this matter to initiate the contempt proceeding and also
proceeding further to take cognizance against the respondents/accused.
Consequently, keeping in view the provision of section 2(b) of the Contempt
of Courts Act and inclusive of Rule 9 of the High Court of Manipur, Rules 2019
which is referred as supra are concerned, it is opened that this contempt
proceeding be maintained in accordance with law and proceed against the
respondents/accused for taken cognizance.
It is further deemed appropriate to refer and keeping in view the
provision section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and wherein the
ingredients having disclosed in this contempt proceeding relating to the
violation of the orders rendered by the Executing court and also willful
disobedience and therefore, it is deemed appropriate that there are ample
material evidences has been found and wherein the Judgement and Decree
rendered by the First Appellate Court even modified the Judgement and
Decree and even to the extent of the Executing has rendered an order dated
05.12.2022 and therefore, it is a fit case for framing of charge against the
respondents/accused. Accordingly, taking cognizance and to proceed in
further in accordance with law.
However, keeping in view all the contentions taken by the
learned senior counsel for complainant and learned senior counsel for the
respondent/accused and inclusive of the counsel of the respondent No.6 and
more so in a given peculiar facts and circumstances are concerned, it is
deemed to refer the judgment of Chairman, West Bengal Administrative
Tribunal Vs. SK Monobbor Hossain,(2012) 3 SCALE 534 and wherein it is
stated that the contempt jurisdiction enjoyed by the courts is only for the
purpose of upholding the majesty of the judicial system that exists. While
exercising this power, the courts must not be hyper sensitive or swung by
emotions, but must act judiciously. The contempt proceedings are intended
to ensure compliance of the orders of the court and adherence to the rule of
law. Once the essentials for initiation of contempt proceedings are satisfied,
the court would initiate an action uninfluenced by the nature of the direction,
i.e., as to whether these directions were specific in a lis pending between the
parties or were of general nature or were in rem; Priya Gupta v. Add. Secy.
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, (2012) 12 SCALE 289.
However in this contempt proceedings the order which was
rendered by Executing court is required to be obeyed by the
respondents/accused, as it is deemed appropriate that there are sufficient
materials evidence to constitute the ingredient of the provision of section 2(b)
of the Contempt Courts Act of 1971 and therefore to proceed for framing
charges against the respondents/accused.
Consequently, this matter would be listed 10.07.2025 and the
counsel for the respondent No.1 to 6 be directed to keep them present
physically on the next date of hearing.
CHIEF JUSTICE
John Kom
