Willful disobedience of a court order constitutes civil contempt, and late apologies do not absolve responsibility.

JUDGMENT :

A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

1. The present contempt application has been filed, seeking following prayers :

“A. That the Hon’ble Court be pleased to prosecute and punish the respondents/contemnors under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for committing willful disobedience of the order dated 15th December, 2010 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Civil Application (For Stay) No.6605 of 2010 in Second Appeal No.121 of 2010;

B. That the Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass suitable directions against the respondents/ contemnors for remedying and rectifying the things done in violation of order dated 15th December, 2010 and thereafter and to take restitutive measures.”

BRIEF FACTS

2. By a comprehensive order dated 04.03.2024, the Coordinate Bench of this Court had framed the charges against the respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under:-

16. On 28.02.2024, instead of coming with the cancellation/deregistration of the deed, an excuse is offered that the cancellation could not take place, as online appointment with signatures of all the parties was not available.

17. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties and perusing the material available on record, prima facie, we are of the opinion that the contemnor has willfully and deliberately violated the direction of status quo. Initially, it was not the case of the opponents, that they were not represented by the learned advocate. It is only in the affidavit filed on 22.01.2024, a stand has been taken, perhaps, to improvise their case and to support the explanation, which in the prima facie opinion of this Court, appears to be an afterthought. 18. Accordingly, since the opponents have failed to place on record the deed of cancellations, as per the order dated 22.01.2024, we frame the following charge on the opponents - contemnors so as to proceed further.

Charge:

“You, Ms. Damyantiben Narayanbhai Chauhan- opponent no.1, Ms. Jashodaben Narayanbhai Chauhan- opponent no.2, Ms. Nirupamaben Narayanbhai Chauhan- opponent No.3 and Ms. Kalpanaben Narayanbhai Chauhan- opponent No.4, have willfully and deliberately violated the direction issued in the order dated 15.12.2010, by executing the agreement to sell and not maintaining the status quo. From the material placed on record, it appears that you have violated the said direction issued by the Court under the provision of Section 10 read with Section 12 of the Act of 1971.”

3. The aforesaid order was challenged before the Supreme Court by filing SLP (Civil) Diary No.3755 of 2024. By the order dated 06.09.2024, the SLP was dismissed, by reserving liberty in favour of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 i.e. original petitioners before the Supreme Court to file their response to the charge taking all points in defence and also to seek permission to appear through virtual mode as they all are senior citizens.

4. Thereafter the matter has been adjourned on numerous occasions. On 07.02.2025, all the four respondents – contemnors were present, two by virtual mode and the other two physically and they had submitted that they were not made aware about the status quo order granted by this Court in Civil Application (for stay) No.6605 of 2010 in Second Appeal No.121 of 2010. The learned advocate appearing for them was also heard and thereafter, the matter was further adjourned. When the matter was heard on 13.02.2025, Mr.Mishra, learned advocate appearing for the respondents has submitted that the respondents have instituted a suit being Regular Civil Suit No.14 of 2024 before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar for cancellation of agreement to sell dated 08.03.2022 and the same is pending before the Civil Court. He has also referred to the undertaking dated 21.12.2023, wherein the respondents have assured that they will not execute sale deed with the proposed buyer or to anyone till the outcome of the Second Appeal. Thereafter, the matter was heard on 03.03.2025 again at length. The fact of f