Wilful violation of a clear and unambiguous court order amounts to contempt of court. Age, ignorance of law, or failing memory cannot justify violation of a court order. An apology should be evidence of real contriteness and not a mere formality.

Arijit Banerjee, J.

1. This contempt application has been filed for alleged violation of an order dated 27 February, 2012 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in FMA 1253 of 2011. A Rule was issued on 18 January, 2017 and the proceeding was re-numbered as CRC No. 2 of 2017. The respondents have filed affidavits-in-opposition and the petitioner has filed his replies thereto.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed an application under Sec. 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 praying for Letters of Administration in respect of a Will executed by one Charubala Bose before the Learned District Delegate at Alipore. The said case was registered as Act 39 Case No. 312 of 2010 and is still pending. By an order dated 17 December, 2010, the Learned District Delegate at Alipore adjudged the same to be a contentious cause. Soon thereafter the petitioner filed an application under Sec. 276 of the Indian Succession Act before the Learned District Judge, Alipore which was registered as Act 39 Case No. 378 of 2010 (L.A.)

3. The petitioner also moved an application under O. 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Sec. 268 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 before the Learned Court below praying for an order of injunction to restrain the respondents from developing the schedule property which was the subject matter of the application for Letters of Administration. By an order dated 7 March, 2011 the Learned Court below directed maintenance of status quo in respect of the said property. Being aggrieved, the respondents preferred an appeal before this Court being FMAT 562 of 2011 and filed an application for stay being CAN 4985 of 2011. By an order dated 7 June, 2011 a Division Bench of this court set aside the Learned Trial Court’s order dated 7 March, 2011 and sent the matter back to the Learned Court below for disposal of the injunction application within 31 July, 2011. The Division Bench also directed that status quo be maintained in respect of the said property.

4. The injunction application was disposed of by the learned Court below by an order dated 19 July, 2011 by partly allowing the same but not restraining the construction that was being made on the schedule property. Being aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the said order before a Division Bench of this Court by filing FMA 1253 of 2011. An interim order of status quo was passed in the appeal. The appeal was finally disposed of by an order dated 27 February, 2012. The Division Bench modified the order of status quo, granting liberty to the respondent nos. 1 to 3 to carry on with the construction work on the schedule property without claiming any special equity therefor. It was further directed that ‘the parties must not create any third party interest without leave being obtained from this Court upon notice to the other side’. It is wilful violation of this order that is alleged in this contempt application.

5. It is the short case of the petitioner that third party interest has been created by the respondent nos. 1 to 3 in respect of the said property in breach of the aforesaid order dated 27 February, 2012 by execution of the following documents:-

(i) a deed of conveyance dated 6 September, 2013 executed by the respondent no. 1 in favour of the respondent nos. 4 and 5 in respect of a portion of the said property.

(ii) a deed of conveyance dated 22 November, 2013 executed by the respondent no. 1 through the pen of her constituted attorney being the respondent no. 3 in favour of the respondent nos. 4 and 5 in respect of some other portions of the said property.

(iii) a deed of conveyance dated 23 July, 2013 executed by the respondent no.1 in favour of the respondent no. 5 in respect of the some portions of the said property.

(iv) a deed of gift dated 10 July, 2013 executed by the respondent no. 1 jointly in favour of the respondent nos. 2 and 6 in respect of a portion of the said property.

6. Affidavits have been filed by the respon