V. Gopala Gowda, J.— This Criminal Contempt Petition is filed by the Bangalore Development Authority against the accused for initiating contempt proceedings and to punish him for abuse of process of the Court, which amounts to criminal contempt.

2. The brief facts leading for filing of this criminal contempt petition are, one M.S. Prithviraj, the father of the accused, filed suit in O.S. No. 6463/2000 on the file of XVI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore seeking a declaration that he perfected title by adverse possession and for injunction in respect of the property bearing Corporation Nos. 619 and 620 situated in 8th Block, Koramangala, Bangalore. The BDA filed I.A.IX under Order 7 Rule 11(a) CPC for rejection of plaint. By order dated 18/9/2003 the Court allowed the application and rejected the plaint for want of cause of action as the property in question was acquired by the BDA. By that time, the accused's father Prithviraj was dead. Against the rejection of the plaint, R.F.A. 1139/2003 was filed before this Court. By judgment dated 17/2/2004 the appeal was dismissed with certain observations. By that time, on 23/10/2003 the accused filed another suit in O.S. No. 7650/2003 seeking same relief. This made the BDA to file the present petition.

In the contempt petition it is averred that the repeated proceedings initiated by the accused against the complainant in respect of the property in question interferes and obstructs the administration of justice and the judicial proceedings. Therefore, it is an act of abuse of process of the Court of the accused persons and amounts to "criminal contempt" as defined under Section 2(c) Clause-(iii) of the Contempt of Court's Act of 1971 (hereinafter called as the 'Act' in short). The consent of learned Advocate General is obtained by the complainant on 29/12/2003 as required under Section 15(1) (b) of the Act.

3. The Advocate who had filed the aforementioned two suits was impleaded as second accused. Subsequently, he was given-up and his name has been deleted from the array of second accused in the cause title of the complaint petition pursuant to order dated 6/7/2007. The accused filed objections denying the allegations and averments made against him. He contended that the institution of suits both by his deceased father and himself do not amount to contempt and prayed to dismiss the petition, as there is no merit in the allegations made against him.

4. Mr. C.B. Srinivasan, learned Counsel appearing for the BDA relied upon the Division Bench decision of this Court reported in Vijaya Bank Employees Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. Muneerappa, ILR (1990) KAR 4179 wherein at paragraph 5 it is held as under:

5. In order to appreciate the respective contentions, we must find out whether there is an abuse of process of Court. Such an abuse undoubtedly would constitute contempt of Court as held by the Supreme Court in (1980) 3 S.C.C page 311. While examining the scope of criminal contempt within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, their Lordships pointed out as follows:

Abuse of the process of the Court calculated to hamper the due courses of a judicial proceeding or the orderly administration of justice is a Contempt of Court.

Their Lordships further pointed out as follows:

In considering whether the action of the accused amounted to Contempt of Court, the Court must take into account the whole course of the continuing contumacious conduct of the accused from the very beginning.

Their Lordships also pointed out:

Application after application was thereafter filed before the same single Judge, everyone of them being designed to circumvent, defeat or nullify the effect of the orders of the Division Benches of that High Court as well as the High Court having the jurisdiction of the case. Every application was a daring 'raid' on the Court and each was an abuse of the process of the Court, calculated to obstruct the due course of a judicial proceedings and the administrati