JUDGMENT :

Sureshwar Thakur, J. (Oral)

On oral request of the learned counsels appearing for the contesting litigants, CACP No. 11 of 2024 is taken on board itself for hearing.

2. Since both these contempt appeals arise from common orders made by the learned Contempt Bench of this Court, respectively on 07.05.2024, and, on 29.05.2024, in COCP-444-2021, orders whereof are extracted hereinafter, therefore, both these contempt appeals are amenable for being decided through a common verdict.

"Order dated 07.05.2024

The present petition has been filed alleging contempt qua the order dated 16.12.2016 passed in Civil Suit No.125/2004, whereby respondents No.5 to 15 were held to be not the proper management of the Society and despite that, they are selling the land belonging to the Society.

It deserves mention that the Society was established by a Sanyasi called Swami Dhirendra Brahmchari. Since, he was a Sanyasi, therefore, he had proclaimed to the world that he had renounced it. Therefore, as such, there cannot be any legal heir of a person, who has renounced the world. In such a situation, the property left behind such a person or the establishment of such a person has to be taken as the property without a title-holder after the death of the said Sanyasi. Accordingly, in normal course, the entire properties of Swami Dhirendra Brahmchari and the Society established by him are supposed to go to the State by way of escheat.

Counsel for the State seeks time to get instructions as to whether and when the State is going to take over the properties left behind by Swami Dhirendra Brahmchari and the Society created by him.

Adjourned to 29.05.2024. "

3. At the outset itself, it is crystal clear from a reading of the above extracted order that, thereby the learned Contempt Bench of this Court, did make a declaration that, with the deceased owner of the suit properties, who was a Sanyasi, thus not leaving behind any successor to his estate, as such, the suit properties were required to be escheated to the respondent-State. Prima facie, at the outset itself, the said made declaration was clearly beyond the scope and ambit of the jurisdiction vested in the learned Competent Bench of this Court, which but is strictly trammeled within the frontiers of only enforcing any orders or directions passed by this Court, and/or, for maintaining and upholding the dignity and majesty of judicial proceedings laid either before this Court, or, for maintaining and upholding the dignity and majesty of judicial proceedings laid before the trial courts concerned, but, only when a reference to that extent is made to this Court. Therefore, at the outset itself the contempt petitions were gross abuse of the process of Court, and, were required to be declared as such at the threshold.

4. Before commencing to adjudicate the controversy agitated in the instant appeals, it would be apposite to, at this juncture, allude to a judgment relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the appellants regarding the maintainability of the instant appeals. The said judgment has been rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as "Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Association (2) Vs. S.C. Sekar and Others", (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 784, relevant portion whereof becomes extracted hereinafter:-

"40. Although we need not go into the larger question of maintainability of the appeal in view of the fact that the matter had been referred to a three-Judge Bench in Dharam Singh v. Gulzari Lal [SLP (Civil) No.18852 of 2005, Decided on: 19.09.2005], but prima facie, in view of the decision of this Court in Purshotam Dass [(1978) 2 SCC 370:1978 SCC (Cri) 195] there cannot be any doubt that in a situation where order has been passed adverse to the interest of the alleged contemnor an appeal would be maintainable particularly where a judgment has been passed by a court which is beyond its jurisdiction "

5. A reading of the above extracted portion of the judgment (supra), but reveals