Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 201

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, RAJESH BINDAL, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
M/s Shah Enterprises through Padmaben Mansukhbhai Modi – Appellant
Versus
Vaijayantiben Ranjitsingh Sawant and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3865 of 2024, Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2159 of 2016
Decided On : 06-03-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Amar Dave, Sr., Adv. Mr. Pradhuman Gohil, Adv. Mrs. Taruna Singh Gohil, Adv. Mr. Vikash Singh, AOR Ms. Ranu Purohit, Adv. Mr. Alapati Sahithya Krishna, Adv. Mr. Mr. Rushabh N. Kapadia, Adv. Mr. Mohit Prasad, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Singh,, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Nachiket Anil Dave,Adv. Ms. Priyanka Das, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Sanganeria, AOR

IMPORTANT POINT
Filing of suit for asserting rights cannot amount to contempt of Court.

Headnote:
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 12 – Contempt Petition – Dismissal – Even consent terms incorporated in Courts order when breached would give rise to allegations of contempt – In present case, by mere filing of a civil suit asserting certain legal rights over lands in question, it cannot be stated that plaintiffs have breached consent terms – High Court held that act of respondents in filing civil suit may be one of annoyance or nuisance to contempt petitioner (appellant), however, mere filing of suit would not amount to contempt – Filing of suit for asserting rights of plaintiffs/respondents could not be said to be amounting to contempt of Court – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 10, 25 and 26)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal arises out of order dated 9th December 2015 passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Misc. Civil Application (For Contempt) No. 3364 of 2015, thereby dismissing the said Contempt Petition filed by the present appellant.
Findings of Court:
There is no adjudication. No doubt that consent terms entered into between one of predecessors-in-title of respondents and the Original Owners have received the imprimatur of Court. However, respondents claiming their ancestral rights over more than 2000 acres of land and also claiming that the said consent decree was obtained in collusion, had filed the suit in question.
Result : Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal arises out of the order dated 9th December 2015 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Misc. Civil Application (For Contempt) No. 3364 of 2015, thereby dismissing the said Contempt Petition filed by the present appellant.

FACTS

3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are as under:

3.2 In the year 1956, the said lease deed was cancelled by the Original Owners by way of a notice.

3.3 In the year 1969, the land in question was bought by 67 persons. However, the sale deed was originally executed in the name of four persons. The land in question was subsequently divided into 67 divisions.

3.4 In the year 1972, after the death of Bapusaheb Bajirao Sawant, his legal heirs including one Ranjitsingh Bapusaheb Sawant filed Special Civil Suit bearing Nos. 23, 24, and 25 of 1972 in the Court of the Civil Judge (S.D.) Surat, claiming possession over the land in question based on the lease deed.

3.5 In the said suits, a compromise agreement was entered into between the heirs of Bapusaheb Bajirao Sawant and the Original Owners of the subject property, whereby it was agreed that the lease issued in the year 1953 had been cancelled in the year 1956 and after the cancellation of the lease deed, the legal heirs had no right, title, and interest in the subject property based on heirship. The said compromise agreement was recorded as consent decree by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) Surat, vide order dated 18th September 1972.

3.6 In the year 1986, the appellant herein bought land admeasuring 20 acres out of the land bearing Survey No. 506 vide a registered sale deed.

3.7 In the year 2008, Ranjitsingh Bapusaheb Sawant expired.

3.8 In the year 2014, i.e. after the death of Ranjitsingh Bapusaheb Sawant, who was the legal heir of Bapusaheb Bajirao Sawant, his legal heirs filed Regular Civil Suit No. 645 of 2014 in the Court of learned Principal Civil Judge, Surat against 264 defendants, including the appellant herein, for declaration and permanent injunction.

3.9 In the year 2015, the appellant sent legal notices to all the respondents herein and brought to their attention the consent decree passed in the year 1972 and, therefore, requested them to withdraw the suit filed before the Principal Civil Judge, Surat.

3.10 Since the respondents did not withdraw the suit, the appellant filed a Contempt Petition being Misc. Civil Application (For Contempt) No. 3364 of 2015 before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. The said petition came to be dismissed vide the impugned judgment.

3.11 Hence the present appeal.

4. This Court vide order dated 22nd February 2016 had issued notice. We have heard Shri Amar Dave, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Nachiket Anil Dave, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

SUBMISSIONS

5. Shri Amar Dave, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the finding of the High Court that mere filing of a suit cannot be construed to be within the scope of Contempt jurisdiction is erroneous and contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority vs. Skipper Construction and Another, (1995) 3 SCC 507 : 1995 INSC 105. It is submitted that, in the present case, a lis between the parties had culminated into a compromise agreement leading to passing of a consent decree in a judicial proceeding. It is, therefore, submitted that filing of the suit contrary to the consent decree, which has received the imprimatur of the Court, would amount to contempt of the Court. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the filing of the suit was nothing else but a brazen act to undermine the judicial process by filing multiple proceedings and that too after a peri