Whether mindful or unmindful, a mistake cannot be allowed to remain.

Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.

This appeal is admitted and notice has been served upon the learned counsel for the respondents, who appears to contest this matter. The scope of the appeal is very very limited, for which, no formal hearing of the appeal on a future date is required.

Learned counsel for the appellant drawing our attention to the allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the contempt application, namely, paragraph-4 of the affidavit submits that the allegations contained therein have no correlation with the order passed by the Hon’ble trial Judge. He submits drawing our attention to the order of the Hon’ble trial Judge that there has been no order restraining his client from entering into the land. The order relates to something else. He also submits drawing our attention to Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’) that there is no prima facie allegation of commission of contempt going by the definition as above. According to him, the impugned order is a separate one and has got nothing to do with the first order in relation to which, the contempt application is said to have been made.

Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to give answer to the definition pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant. She goes on saying some other subject, for which, her clients have grievance. She says that it will appear from the records that the appellant is not supposed to enter into or use the land for agricultural activities and as a result whereof, her clients have suffered loss and damages. In view of the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel, we examine the first order, which was passed by the Hon’ble trial Judge and it appears to us on a reading thereof, that Hon’ble trial Judge has not passed any order in relation to the possession of any property, but has passed an order directing the parties not to create third party interest and not to execute any document with regard to the suit schedule land. We, therefore, set out the relevant portion of the order.

“In view of the facts and circumstances, both the parties are directed not to create any third party interests and shall not execute any documents with regard to the suit schedule land.”

On a reading of the same, we examined the statements and averments made in the affidavit of the contempt case. Apart from the allegations made in paragraph-4 of the affidavit filed in support of the contempt case, there is no other allegation. In paragraph-4, the 1st respondent-petitioner has alleged that “after obtaining the said orders, I made representations to the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and asked to implement the orders of this Hon’ble Court. But till date not doing the same. In the meantime, the 4th respondent and his men had illegally trespassed into my property and also trying to stop me not to enter into my lands.”

Firstly, we observe while agreeing with the argument of Mr.B.Narasimha Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant that there has been no disclosure of prima facie commission of contempt as required under Section 2(b) of the Act. We reproduce the said provision herein below:

“Civil Contempt” means willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a Court.

In our view, unless there has been a prima facie statement and averment with the words “willful disobedience” there cannot be any prima facie case of contempt. Moreover, the Contempt of Courts (Andhra Pradesh High Court) Rules,1980 (for short ‘the Rules’) have also stated how a statement has to be made with regard to the contempt proceedings by a petitioner. Rule 7 of the Rules mandates as follows:

“7. (1) Every petition under Rule 5(b) and (c) shall contain:

(a) the name, description and place of residence of the petitioner or petitioners and of the person charged:

(b) the nature and details of the contempt alleged, and such material facts, includ