Back
2020 Supreme(AP) 207
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J.
Chagantipati Muralidhar - Appellant
Versus
Chagantipati Nandini Kishore Babu - Respondent
Contempt Case No. 472 of 2019
Decided on : 04-02-2020
Advocate Appeared:
M. Chalapati Rao, Advocate, Party In Person, Advocate
Headnote:
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Sections 10 to 12 – Petitioner herein against one Chagantipati Nandini Kishore Babu/fifth respondent in Civil Revision Petition No.6565 of 2012, with a request to call for record and punish contemnor/respondent herein (fifth respondent in C.R.P 6565 of 2012) for his willful, wanton and deliberate violation of order dated 01.02.2018, alleging that the petitioner challenged the order passed in C.M.A No.3 of 2009 by V Addl. District Judge, Vijayawada in Civil Revision Petition No.6565 of 2012 under Article 227 of The Constitution of India – Respondent willfully violated the order and disobeyed the order of Court, to maintain status quo in C.R.P No.6565 of 2012, such disobedience is willful ex-facie, since the respondent is an advocate, who is conducting his own case. An advocate is expected to know the minimum law, applicable to the facts of the case and he cannot plead an excuse on the ground of misinterpretation of principles laid down by the Apex Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency (1st referred supra). Therefore, construction of shed for his habitation in schedule premises of suit in O.S No.1219 of 2008 passed by Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District, is a clear willful disobedience of order of the Court. Hence, respondent is liable for punishment under Section 12 of the Act, but taking into consideration of the profession of respondent, he has to be dealt sternly as held by the Apex Court in Priya Gupta and another (2nd referred supra). But taking into consideration of profession of contemnor and excuse pleaded by respondent, he is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only), in default of payment of fine, the contemnor shall undergo simple imprisonment, for a period of one (1) month - Contempt case is allowed.
Facts of the Case:
Petitioner herein against one Chagantipati Nandini Kishore Babu/fifth respondent in Civil Revision Petition No.6565 of 2012, with a request to call for record and punish contemnor/respondent herein (fifth respondent in C.R.P 6565 of 2012) for his willful, wanton and deliberate violation of order dated 01.02.2018, alleging that the petitioner challenged the order passed in C.M.A No.3 of 2009 by V Addl. District Judge, Vijayawada dated 27.09.2012 in Civil Revision Petition No.6565 of 2012 under Article 227 of The Constitution of India,
Finding of the Court:
Petitioner got issued legal notice dated 08.03.2019 to respondent herein, for willful and deliberate violation of the order of this Court, the notice was returned with endorsement "enquired 08.03.2019 to 13.03.2019 addressee not known hence, returned to the sender". If there is any change of address, during the proceedings, pending before the court, it is the duty of the party, concerned to inform the same to the court by filing a memo, giving notice to the other side in terms of Order VI, Rule 14 of Civil Procedure Code - But for one reason or the other, the respondent did not inform the address particulars to the Court, thereby, petitioner could not effect actual service of notice on respondent, again issued another notice dated 04.04.2019 to the known address, but the same was returned with postal endorsement
Result: Contempt case is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.
This contempt case under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short the Act) is filed by petitioner herein against one Chagantipati Nandini Kishore Babu/fifth respondent in Civil Revision Petition No.6565 of 2012, with a request to call for record and punish contemnor/respondent herein (fifth respondent in C.R.P 6565 of 2012) for his willful, wanton and deliberate violation of order dated 01.02.2018, alleging that the petitioner challenged the order passed in C.M.A No.3 of 2009 by V Addl. District Judge, Vijayawada dated 27.09.2012 in Civil Revision Petition No.6565 of 2012 under Article 227 of The Constitution of India, wherein V Addl. District Judge, Vijayawada confirmed the order dated 19.01.2009 passed in I.A No. 2104 of 2008 in O.S No.1219 of 2008 passed by Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District. This Court disposed of Civil Revision Petition, setting aside the decree and decreetal order dated 27.09.2012 in C.M.A 3 of 2009 passed by V Addl. District Judge at Vijayawada and order in I.A No.2104 of 2008 in O.S No.1219 of 2008, remanded the matter to Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, directing to restore the interlocutory application No.2104 of 2008 in O.S No.1219 of 2008 to its original number in the register and dispose off the same as expeditiously as possible, in any even not later than three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order, while directing both parties, to maintain status quo till the disposal of interlocutory application.
2. After remand of the matter, Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, restored I.A No.2104 of 2008 in O.S No.1219 of 2008 to its original number, in interlocutory applications register, but did not dispose off the interlocutory application. In the meanwhile, respondent herein(fifth respondent in Civil Revision Petition No.6565 of 2012), started unauthorized construction, on 15.01.2019, in utter disobedience or violation of the order of status quo, granted by this court, to support the same, filed positive photographs of construction.
3. Petitioner got issued legal notice dated 08.03.2019 to respondent herein, for willful and deliberate violation of the order of this Court, the notice was returned with endorsement "enquired 08.03.2019 to 13.03.2019 addressee not known hence, returned to the sender". If there is any change of address, during the proceedings, pending before the court, it is the duty of the party, concerned to inform the same to the court by filing a memo, giving notice to the other side in terms of Order VI, Rule 14 of Civil Procedure Code (for short C.P.C). But for one reason or the other, the respondent did not inform the address particulars to the Court, thereby, petitioner could not effect actual service of notice on respondent, again issued another notice dated 04.04.2019 to the known address, but the same was returned with postal endorsement "12.04.2019 informed". Therefore, it shall be presumed that notice is served, in view of Section 27 of General Clauses Act and presumption under Section 114 of The Evidence Act.
4. Construction of any building or shed by the respondent is a blatant violation of order of this Court dated 01.02.2018 in C.R.P No.6565 of 2012, such violation can be stated to be willful, wanton and deliberate, thereby, respondent is liable to be prosecuted for criminal contempt, requested to punish the respondent for contempt.
5. Respondent filed counter admitting about passing of orders by trial court in I.A No.2104 of 2008 in O.S 1219 of 2008, appeal in C.M.A 3 of 2009 by the appellate court, so also allowing C.R.P No.6565 of 2012 by this Court, with a specific direction. Subsequent to the order of this Court in C.R.P No.6565 of 2012, Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada passed the following docket order, on 20.04.2018 as follows :
"In view of the Circular of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in R.O.C No.2573/OP/Cell/2018 dated 18.04.2018, the parties a
