Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
H.P. SANDESH, J.
Sri Ananda Reddy, S/o Late Muni Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Radhamma, W/o Late Gopal Reddy – Respondent
Miscellaneous First Appeal No.8803 of 2013 (CPC)
Decided on : 29-11-2024
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The case involves a contempt of court proceeding under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code, where the appellant was found to have violated an interim order related to property alienation (!) (!) .
The core issue was whether the appellant's actions constituted willful disobedience of the court's order, with the court emphasizing that willful disobedience must be established to hold someone in contempt (!) (!) .
The appellant sold property despite an order restraining alienation, and this sale occurred before the filing of objections to the interim order, indicating a violation of the court's order (!) (!) .
The appellant argued that there was no willful disobedience, citing health issues and lack of knowledge of the order, and requested leniency on humanitarian grounds (!) (!) .
The court acknowledged the appellant's health condition, including suffering from cancer and undergoing treatment, and considered this as a mitigating factor (!) (!) .
The court noted the appellant’s conduct—selling the property despite knowledge of the interim order and not filing objections promptly—demonstrated willful disobedience (!) (!) .
The court observed that the respondents had been litigating for over two decades to obtain their rightful share and that the appellant's actions hindered this process (!) (!) .
The court decided to modify the original order of detention, imposing a fine of Rs.3 lakhs instead of imprisonment, considering the appellant’s health and the humanitarian aspect (!) (!) .
The fine was to be paid within two weeks; failure to do so would result in the order of detention being confirmed (!) .
The court emphasized that willful disobedience requires proof of deliberate violation, and in this case, the appellant’s conduct was deemed to be willful, warranting a deterrent fine rather than incarceration (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance.
JUDGMENT :
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the caveator/respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. This miscellaneous first appeal is filed against the order dated 25.07.2013 passed on I.A.No.5 filed under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC in O.S.No.7674/2001 ordering detention of defendant No.2/appellant herein for a period of one month for violation of the interim order.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court is that the plaintiffs had filed a suit for partition and separate possession of their 2/9th share in the suit schedule properties along with an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC praying for interim order of injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule properties, pending disposal of the suit and the Trial Court by its order dated 09.01.2002 passed an order that defendant Nos.1 to 3 shall not alienate the suit schedule properties till their filing of objections to I.A.No.1. The plaintiff No.2 filed an affidavit before the Trial Court that this order was violated by defendant No.2 by executing the sale deed on 10.10.2002 in favour of one B.K.Srinath and also contended that two more sale deeds are executed on 03.06.2004 and defendant No.2 has deliberately disobeyed the order dated 09.01.2002 and hence he may be ordered to be detained in civil prison. The defendant No.2/appellant herein filed the objection statement on 02.08.2003 contending that he has sold site No.12, in view of the partition dated 30.06.2000 and he has not violated the order. The Trial Court posted the matter for enquiry on I.A.No.5 and plaintiff No.2 tendered her affidavit evidence in support of I.A.No.5 and got marked the documents Exs.P.1 to 3 sale deeds and the appellant herein did not lead any evidence on I.A.No.5. The Trial Court taking note of the material on record comes to the conclusion that the appellant herein violated the order and ordered to detain him for a period of one month.
4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed contending that the appellant was not having the knowledge or information regarding passing of orders on I.A.No.1 and contend that P.W.2 herself admitted during the cross-examination that defendant No.2 and his previous counsel were not appearing before the Court regularly. It is contended that the application was taken along with main suit and there was a delay in passing the order and imposing the punishment is very harsh and he has not disobeyed any order and there was no any willful disobedience.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant in support of his arguments relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of U.C. SURENDRANATH v. MAMBALLY’S BAKERY reported in (2019) 20 SCC 666 and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.7 of the judgment, wherein discussion was made that for a person to be found guilty under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC, a mere disobedience of interim order would not suffice, but there must be ‘willful disobedience’ of the orders passed by the Court. When there is no such willful disobedience, the Courts cannot hold a person guilty under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC.
6. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of NATHABHAI DHARAMSHI JADAV v. YASHOMATI RAVISHANKAR BAVISHI reported in 2013 SCC Online Guj 3907 and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.12, wherein the Gujarat High Court held that contempt proceedings are between the contemnor and the Court and the Court can pass such orders to impose a deterrent effect on the wrong doers. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.13 of the said judgment, wherein an observation is made that when the wrong cannot be undone, sentence or prison may not completely serve the ends of justice but instead payment of compensation would serve the ends of justice and deter such practice and imposed cost of Rs.1 lakh instead of punishment.
Willful disobedience must be established for contempt under Order 39 Rule 2A; mere disobedience is insufficient.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of upholding court orders and the rule of law, especially in cases of deliberate violation of injunction orders.
Willful disobedience in civil contempt requires proof of intentional and conscious disregard of a court order, not merely negligent acts.
Power to order civil imprisonment under Order XXXIX Rule 2A curtails an individual's fundamental right, albeit through a process of law.
Contempt - Appellant can be exonerated for contempt of court giving benefit of doubt as he tendered unconditional apologies sincerely for the delay in implementation of the order of the court with al....
Wilfully disobeyed the order of injunction – In view of the provisions of Section 22 of the Act of 1971, the provisions of the Act of 1971 are in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions o....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
