SHYLENDRA KUMAR, J.,

1. The complainant in this contempt petition, who claims to be the Court auction purchaser of an immovable property purchased on 11.12.2008 (according to the counsel for the accused he is a bidder and not a Court auction purchaser) having purchased an immovable property namely, a residential accommodation in an auction conducted by the Recovery Officer attached to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore in Application No.1162/1998 has sought for implementation of the order dated 29.2.2000 passed by the Tribunal on the application, that had been filed by the lender-Corporation Bank, a Nationalized public sector Bank.

2. O.A.No.1162/1995 itself has its origin in O.S.No.1391/1993, a suit that had been instituted by the Corporation Bank, Shantinagar Branch for recovery of certain amount said to have been due from its borrower (present accused person) in the name of her proprietary concern by the name and style ‘Sujatha Handlooms’. The suit was contested by the sole defendant, but the suit came to be transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore under the provisions of The Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter to referred to as RDDBFI Act, 1993) and after the creation of such Tribunal under Section 31 of the RDDBFI Act, 1993.

3. From the facts as narrated in the contempt petition and as submitted at the bar, what one can gather is that the complainant has underwent the agony of facing continuous litigation ever since he participated in the auction on 11.12.2008. The complainant was able to secure possession of the subject property, for which he had bid, only on 19.2.2011, that too, according to Sri. P.R. Ramesh, learned counsel for the complainant, after the existing structure itself had been demolished and the house property had become a vacant land etc.

4. The complaint is that there are innumerable number of applications, writ petitions, review petitions, even writ appeals etc., filed by the accused person in between 11.12.2008 and 19.2.2011; that the ordeal of the complainant is still not over, it is continuing as the accused person has kept the matter alive by filing appeal against the order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal not passed on the main application but on an order passed on an application filed for either reviewing/recalling the earlier order is the submission of Sri. Puttige R Ramesh, learned counsel for the complaint which again is sought to be countered by Sri. Nagaraja, learned counsel for the accused person, but such incessant legal proceedings by the accused person is an abuse and misuse of court proceedings by the accused person amounting to ‘criminal contempt’ within the meaning of this expression as defined in section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

5. Be that as it may, while one of the grounds urged in this contempt petition on behalf of the complainant is that the proceedings have been misused rather abused by the accused person to thwart the orders passed not only by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, but also orders passed by this court in a good number of writ petitions that had come to be filed by the accused person before this court. One another grave allegation made in the contempt petition is that the accused person has virtually misrepresented before the trial court in the pending suit in OS No.1539/2010 wherein the accused person figures as the first defendant and the complainant figures as fourth defendant in a suit that has been filed by the sister of the accused in this petition; that it is a suit for partition of the property of the family including the subject property etc., by filing an application under section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 dated 12.8.2010, wherein it is indicated that the High Court while disposing of the writ petition No.17586/2010 filed by the accused person, as per order dated 11.8.2010 had restrained defendants 2, 3 and 4 in the suit and had directed them to keep on hold their acti