Smt. L. Sujatha And 5 Others vs Mohd. Moinuddin And 6 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 6562 Tel

    HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU

                      C.C.NO.1117 of 2022
ORDER:

This contempt case has been filed by the petitioners with a

prayer to punish the respondents for the alleged deliberate, willful,

intentional and conscious act of contempt of Court on the ground

that they violated the orders of this Court in I.A.No.2 of 2021 in

C.R.P. No.890 of 2021. The defendant No.4 in the above referred

C.R.P.No.890 of 2021 has filed his affidavit in support of his

petition with the following averments.

2. He being petitioner in the main C.R.P. and G.P.A.

holder of the other petitioners are well acquainted with the facts of

the case. All the petitioners entered into an agreement of sale

with the legal heirs of original owners of the property admeasuring

Ac.20-00 gts in Sy.Nos.157 and 158 of Narsingi Village. When

there was an interference with the above property by Haji Syed

Ahmed Abdullah, the petitioners have filed O.S.No.248 of 1980,

which was ended in compromise on 14.11.1983. In view of the

said compromise, all the parties agreed to sell the property to the

petitioners and accordingly, a compromise was prepared by virtue

of compromise recorded in I.A.No.467 of 1983. The petitioners 2 SSRN,J C.C.No.1117 of 2022

were given vacant physical possession of the property. The

petitioners got their names mutated in the revenue records from

1983.

3. The petitioners have further stated that during 1992,

some of the legal heirs of the original vendors approached the

petitioners and demanded more money, thereby the petitioners

paid Rs.10,00,000/- towards total sale consideration and obtained

another agreement dated 28-09-1992 from all the 22 legal heirs of

original vendors. They have also executed an irrevocable power of

attorney in favour of the petitioner No.2. On the basis of said

GPA, the petitioners have sold an extent of Ac.9-20 gts to third

parties during 1995-2000 and they are left with the remaining land

i.e., Ac.10-05 gts.

4. The petitioners have further stated that they

questioned the proceedings of Urban Land Ceiling Authorities for

surrender of surplus land and succeeded in W.P.Nos.19512 of 2008

and 21914 of 2008 against which Writ Appeals are pending. When

some of the legal heirs of the original owners made an attempt to

encroach the property, the petitioners have filed W.P.No.15224 of

2011 and obtained permission to construct a compound wall after

obtaining necessary permission from the Gram Panchayat.

Subsequently, their Writ Petition was allowed on 29-12-2017.

                                      3                                 SSRN,J
                                                          C.C.No.1117 of 2022

However, the vendors of the petition did not come forward to

execute and register the sale deeds in respect of the remaining

extent. The petitioners have filed O.S.No.191 of 2020 before

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. They have filed

a petition vide I.A.No.216 of 2020 for ad-interim injunction to

restrain the respondents therein from interfering with the

possession and enjoyment of the petitioners.

5. The trial Court ordered notice to the respondents, did

not decide the matter on merits even after one year. The

petitioners have filed C.R.P.No.890 of 2021, they filed a petition

vide I.A.No.2 of 2021 and this Court granted injunction in their

favour.

6. The petitioners further stated that inspite of an

injunction that was granted by this Court, the respondents entered

into the suit schedule property on 20-05-2022, stopped the

workers of the petitioners from cleaning the site and threatened

them with dire consequences. They have stopped the JCB

machine and destroyed the CCTV cameras apart from physically

attacked the watchman causing injuries to him. When the

workman tried to obtain photographs, they also destroyed his cell

phone and abused him in filthy language. Therefore, the 4 SSRN,J C.C.No.1117 of 2022

petitioners prayed for punishing the respondents for the above

contempt.

7. Heard.

8. The respondents placed reliance on Judgment between

"Nazma Begum vs. Ramjash @ Kiranu and Another"1, on the

file of High Court of Allahabad and another Judgment between

"Dalip Singh vs. Ram Nath and Another"2, for the proposition

that "when a contempt is alleged, violation of order under 39 Rules

1 and 2 C.P.C., the remedy available to the applicant is under

Order 39 Rule 2A C.P.C. and no action can be taken under the

Contempt of Court". As per the averments made in the affidavit

filed in support of the petition and as per the arguments advanced

for the petitioners, it is the specific case of the petitioners that

they have filed a suit for specific performance and they sought for

ad-interim injunction to restrain the respondents from interfering

with their possession on the schedule property. According to the

petitioner's further case, the learned Principle Senior Civil Judge,

Ranga Reddy did not pass any orders in the interlocutory

application filed by the petitioners for temporary injunction.

Therefore, they approached this Court by way of Civil Revision

Contempt Application (Civil) No.169/2020

2003 Cri LJ 2984 5 SSRN,J C.C.No.1117 of 2022

Petition and moved an application for injunction. A copy of the

order in I.A.No.2 of 2021 in the said C.R.P. was filed along with the

revision. According to the said order, this Court granted interim

injunction in favour of the petitioners restraining the respondents

from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the

petitioners on the schedule property. The petitioners have claimed

that inspite of the said order in their favour, the respondents

interfered with the possession, destroyed the CCTV cameras and

other machines apart from assaulting the watchman, thereby the

petitioners sought for action under the Contempt of Courts Act

against the respondents.

9. In the above referred Judgments, there is a clear

finding that if any contempt is alleged against a person for

violating the injunction orders granted under Order 39 Rules 1 and

2 C.P.C., the same can be questioned before the same Court under

Order 39 rule 2-A C.P.C. While dismissing the request, in the

above Judgment, the Allahabad High Court made the following

observation :

"An application under Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, released violation of temporary injunction granted by the trial Court is not liable to be entertained under the contempt jurisdiction. The remedy for the applicant is to approach the appellate Court under Order 39 Rule 2-A C.P.C."

                                              6                                   SSRN,J
                                                                    C.C.No.1117 of 2022

10. In another Judgments between Food Corporation of

India vs. Sukh Deo Prasad3", and "Kanwar Singh Saini vs

High Court of Delhi"4, it was held that :

"The power exercised by a Court under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the CPC is punitive in nature, akin to the power to punish for civil contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and such powers are to be exercised with Court caution and responsibility and in case a final order, the decree lies in execution and not in an action of contempt or disobedience and in case of breach of temporary injunction, the remedy is available under Order 39 rule 2-A C.P.C."

11. It is observed in the above referred Judgment that

contempt of Court is essentially a matter which concerns the

administration of justice, dignity and authority of Courts and

Judicial Tribunals. It is not a right of the party to be invoked for

his redress of his grievance. It is also not a mode by which the

rights of a party adjudicated by the Court or Tribunal can be

enforced against another party. Moreover, if the matter requires a

detail enquiry, it must be left with Court which passed the order

which presumably is fully acquainted with the subject matter of its

own order.

12. In the another Judgment between "Dalip Singh vs.

Ram Nath and Anr."5 the High Court of Himachal Pradesh made

an observation that :

2009 (3) SCC 2330

2012 (4) SCC 307 7 SSRN,J C.C.No.1117 of 2022

"The petitioner who had the alternative remedy under Rule 2-A Order 39 C.P.C. failed to avail such remedy and no proceedings are forthcoming as to why did not avail such alternate remedy. The discretion powers under Contempt of Courts Act is not called for".

13. From the above Judgments, it is clear that when the

petitioners have got an alternate remedy, under Order 39 rule 2-A

C.P.C., they cannot invoke the powers of High Court under Section

12 of Contempt of Courts Act. The petitioners did not explain why

they choose the present mode rather than to apply under Order 39

Rule 2-A C.P.C. Therefore, there are no grounds to proceed

against the respondents and the contempt case is liable to be

closed.

14. In the result, the Contempt Case is dismissed.

Consequently, Miscellaneous applications if any, are closed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

__________________________ JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU Date: 07.12.2022 PLV

2003 Cri LJ 2984 8 SSRN,J C.C.No.1117 of 2022