1990 Supreme(Cal) 395

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SHAMSUDDIN AHMED AND AMAL KANTI BHATTACHARJI, JJ.

Ramendra Nath Mukherjee - Appellant
Versus
Gouri Sankar Mukherjee & Ors. - Respondents
Appeal from Original Order Tender No. 2353 of 1990
Decision: September 17, 1990

An appeal under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act is maintainable even if the order impugned does not punish the alleged contemner.

Headnote:

CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT - SECTION 19(1) - STAY OF ORDER - APPEALABILITY - JURISDICTION - CIVIL CONTEMPT - CRIMINAL CONTEMPT - INTERPRETATION OF PROVISIONS - COURT'S POWER TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT - SCOPE OF APPEAL - MAINTAINABILITY OF APPEAL - PROCEDURE FOR INITIATING CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS - INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS - DECREE - DATE OF EFFECT - PURGING OF CONTEMPT - EXTENSION OF SCOPE OF ORDER - COMPETENCY OF COURT - STAY OF OPERATION OF IMPUGNED ORDER - DISPOSAL OF CONTEMPT APPLICATION.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, who won a suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their cinema business, filed an application for stay of the operation of the judgment. The same was rejected by the learned Munsif. On the next day, the petitioner went to the disputed cinema house but found that the Opposite Parties had created obstruction. They filed an application under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. and obtained an order against opp. party No. 1 and others restraining them not to interfere or disturb in running the cinema business named Aloka and its management by the petitioner. On these facts, the opposite party moved the learned Single Judge for drawing up a proceeding under the contempt of courts Act. On 20.8.90 alleging that the suit was still pending and inspite of it the petitioner herein has interfered with the possession of the disputed property in violation of the order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge. The learned Single Judge heard the matter in presence of the learned Advocates for both the parties. After hearing both the parties the order impugned was passed.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act is maintainable even if the order impugned does not punish the alleged contemner. The court further held that the learned Judge erred in entertaining the application for contempt and passing the impugned order, as the suit had already been decreed and the formal decree was yet to be drawn up. The court also held that the learned Judge was not competent to extend the scope of the order passed by him disposing of the civil revisional application.

Issues: 1. Whether an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act is maintainable even if the order impugned does not punish the alleged contemner? 2. Whether the learned Judge erred in entertaining the application for contempt and passing the impugned order? 3. Whether the learned Judge was competent to extend the scope of the order passed by him disposing of the civil revisional application?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act clearly states that an appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of the High Court in exercise of its Jurisdiction to punish for contempt. The order impugned in this case was passed while exercising Jurisdiction to punish for contempt. Therefore, an appeal under Section 19(1) is maintainable. 2. The court held that the learned Judge erred in entertaining the application for contempt and passing the impugned order, as the suit had already been decreed and the formal decree was yet to be drawn up. The court held that the decree takes effect from the date of the judgment and that the appellant was competent to get the opposite party restrained by an order under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. and get back the possession of the property. 3. The court held that the learned Judge was not competent to extend the scope of the order passed by him disposing of the civil revisional application. The court held that the order disposing of the civil revisional application was to remain in force till disposed of the suit and that the suit had now been determined by a judgment.

Final Decision: The court allowed the application and stayed the operation of the order impugned till the disposal of the appeal. The court also directed the opposite party No.1 and the Special Officers appointed by this Court to deliver up possession to the petitioner immediately if taken over by them.