Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Ravi Malimath, C.J. and Vishal Mishra, J.
fPriya Chouhan (Smt.) v. State of M. P. and another
Writ Appeal No. 1057 of 2022 (Jabalpur): against the order dated 19.3.2021 passed in Writ Petition No. 12933 of 2020;
Decided on 21.4.2023
¼1½ lgdkjh l¨lkbVh vfèkfu;e] 1960 ¼e-ç-½ && èkkjk 64 rFkk 67 ¼1½ && U;k;ky; voeku vfèkfu;e] 1971 && èkkjk 2 ¼[k½] 10 rFkk 12 && flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 39 fu- 2d rFkk vk39 fu-1 ,oa 2 && lgdkjh l¨lkbVh vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 64 d¢ vèkhu Òw&[kaM d¢ fo"k; esa fookn && mä vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 67 ¼1½ d¢ vèkhu ;FkkfLFkfr cuk, j[kus lacaèkh vkns'k çnku fd;k x;k && foj¨èkh i{kdkj }kjk vuqikyu ugÈ fd;k x;k && vkns'k 39 fu;e 2d d¢ vèkhu vkosnu çLrqr && mi jftLVªkj d¢ le{k dk;Zokgh dk fuiVkjk g¨ x;k && voekuuk ij dkjZokbZ d¢ fy, ekeyk mPp U;k;ky; d¨ çsf"kr && rRi'pkr~ fjV ;kfpdk çLrqr && og bl vkèkkj ij [kkfjt fd dk;Zokgh gh lekIr g¨ xà gS blfy, ekeyk fu"Qy g¨ x;k && ml vkns'k d¢ fo#) fjV vihy && tc eq[; dk;Zokgh gh lekIr g¨ xà rks vkns'k 39 fu;e 2d d¢ vèkhu vkosnu xzg.k djus dk ç'u leqfpr ugÈ && ijarq tc U;k;ky; ;k çkfèkdkjh d¢ vkns'k dh voKk dh xà gks rks voekuuk dk ç'u mRiUu g¨rk gS && ckn esa dk;Zokgh eatwj dh xà g¨ ;k [kkfjt] voekuuk fQj Òh vfÒys[k ij jgsxhA
vfÒfuèkkZfjr% tgk¡ rd bl ekeys dk lacaèk gS] tc eq[; dk;Zokgh gh lekIr g¨ xbZ gS rc flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk d¢ vkns'k 39 fu;e 2d d¢ vèkhu vkosnu xzg.k djus dh vfèkdkfjrk dk ç'u] gekjh lqfopkfjr jk; esa] leqfpr ugÈ g¨ ldrkA voekuuk dk ç'u rc mRiUu g¨rk gS tc fdlh U;k;ky; ;k çkfèkdkjh d¢ vkns'k dh voKk dh xà g¨A okLro esa bldk d¨Ã egRo ugÈ fd ckn esa mu dk;Zokfg;¨a d¨ eatwj fd;k x;k gS ;k [kkfjt fd;k x;k gSA voekuuk fQj Òh vfÒys[k ij jgsxhA blfy, fo}ku ,dy U;k;kèkh'k }kjk fjV ;kfpdk bl vkèkkj ij [kkfjt dh tkuk fd dk;Zokgh gh lekIr g¨ pqdh gS blfy, ekeyk] vFkkZr~ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk d¢ vkns'k 39 fu;e 2d d¢ vèkhu vkosnu] fu"Qy g¨ x;k gS] gekjs fopkj esa fofèk dk vk'k; ugÈ gSA ftl dk;Zokgh esa flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk d¢ vkns'k 39 fu;e 2d d¢ vèkhu vkosnu çLrqr fd;k x;k gS mlds [kkfjt ;k eatwj gksus d¢ ckotwn voekuuk dk;Zokgh pyus ;¨X; gSA , vkb vkj 2011 eækl 197 rFkk , vkb vkj 1967 ,l lh 1494 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 8 ,oa 11
¼2½ U;k;ky; voeku vfèkfu;e] 1971 && èkkjk 2 ¼[k½ 10 rFkk 12 && flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 39 fu- 2d && ;FkkfLFkfr cuk, j[kus dk vkns'k && vuqikyu ugÈ fd;k x;k && vkns'k 39 fu;e 2d d¢ vèkhu dkjZokbZ d¢ fy, vkosnu çLrqr && eq[; dk;Zokgh lekIr g¨ pqdh && ;|fi vkns'k 39 fu;e 2d d¢ vèkhu vkosnu leqfpr ugÈ ijarq tc U;k;ky; ;k çkfèkdkjh d¢ vkns'k dh voKk dh xà gks rks ckn esa dk;Zokgh eatwj dh xà gks ;k [kkfjt] voekuuk fQj Òh vfÒys[k ij jgsxh && U;k;ky; dh voekuuk dk çdj.k ntZ djus d¢ fy, jftLVªh dks funs'kA , vkb vkj 2011 eækl 197 rFkk , vkb vkj 1967 ,l lh 1494 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 8 ,oa 11 ls 13
¼3½ mPp U;k;ky; ¼[kaM U;k;ihB d¨ vihy½ vfèkfu;e] 2005 ¼e-ç-½ && èkkjk 2 ¼1½ && fjV vihy && dc gLr{ksi fd;k tk ldrk gS && ;FkkfLFkfr cuk, j[kus ds vkns'k dk vuqikyu ugÈ fd;k x;k && voekuuk ij dkjZokbZ d¢ fy, ekeyk mPp U;k;ky; d¨ çsf"kr && rRi'pkr~ fjV ;kfpdk çLrqr dh xà && fjV ;kfpdk bl vkèkkj ij [kkfjt dh xà fd eq[; dk;Zokgh lekIr g¨ pqdh gS && tc U;k;ky; ;k çkfèkdkjh d¢ vkns'k dh voKk dh xà g¨ rc] eq[; dk;Zokgh ckn esa eatwj dh xà g¨ ;k [kkfjt] voekuuk fQj Òh vfÒys[k ij jgsxh && fjV U;k;ky; dk vkns'k vikLr && fjV ;kfpdk va'kr% eatwj && U;k;ky; dh voekuuk dk çdj.k ntZ djus d¢ fy, jftLVªh dks funs'kA ¼iSjk 8 ,oa 11 ls 13
(1) Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (M. P.) -- Ss. 64 and 67 (1) -- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 -- Ss. 2 (b), 10 and 12 -- Civil P. C., 1908 -- O. 39 R. 2A and O. 39 Rr. 1 and 2 -- dispute regarding plot under section 64 of Cooperative Societies Act -- order of maintaining status quo granted under section 67 (1) of said Act -- not complied with by opposite party -- application filed under Order 39 rule 2A -- proceedings before Deputy Registrar disposed of -- matter sent to High Court for action on contempt -- thereafter writ petition filed -- same dismissed on ground that proceedings itself concluded, therefore matter became infructuous -- writ appeal against such order -- when main proceeding itself is concluded, question of entertaining application under order 39 rule 2A not appropriate -- but when order of Court or authority has been disobeyed, question of contempt arises -- whether proceedings subsequently allowed or dismissed, contempt would still remain on record.
Held : So far as the instant case is concerned, the question of jurisdiction to entertain an application under order 39 rule 2A of the CPC when the main proceeding itself is concluded, in our considered view, may not be appropriate. The question of contempt arises when an order of a Court or authority has been disobeyed. It is really of no consequence whether those proceedings are subsequently allowed or dismissed. The contempt would still remain on record. Therefore, the dismissal of the writ petition by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the proceedings itself have been concluded and, therefore, the matter has become infructuous, namely, the application under order 39 rule 2A of the CPC, in our considered view, is not what the law intended. The contempt proceedings are maintainable irrespective of the dismissal or allowing of the proceedings under which an application under order 39 rule 2A of the CPC has been filed. AIR 2011 Mad. 197 and AIR 1967 SC 1494 referred to. [Paras 8 & 11
(2) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 -- Ss. 2 (b), 10 and 12 -- Civil P. C., 1908 -- O. 39 R. 2A -- order for maintaining status quo -- not complied with -- application filed for action under order 39 rule 2A -- main proceedings concluded -- though application under order 39 rule 2A not appropriate but when order of Court or authority is disobeyed, whether proceedings subsequently allowed or dismissed, contempt would still remain on record -- Registry directed to resiter contempt of Court case. AIR 2011 Mad. 197 and AIR 1967 SC 1494 referred to. [Para 8 & 11 to 13
(3) Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 (M. P.) -- S. 2 (1) -- writ appeal -- order of maintaining status quo not complied with -- matter sent to High Court for action on contempt -- thereafter writ petition filed -- writ petition dismissed on ground that main proceedings are concluded -- when order of Court or authority is disobeyed, whether main proceedings are subsequently allowed or dismissed, contempt would still remain on record -- order of writ Court set side -- writ petition partly allowed -- Registry directed to register contempt of Court case. [Paras 8 & 11 to 13
ORDER
1. Assailing the order dated 19.3.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the Writ Petition No.12933 of 2020, the writ petitioner is in appeal.
2. Vide order dated 16.9.2022, the writ appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, review petition was filed being Review Petition No.1147 of 2022. Vide order dated 10.11.2022, the review petition was allowed and the order dated 16.9.2022 in Writ Appeal No.1057 of 2022 was reviewed and recalled. The writ appeal was restored to file. Thereafter, the writ appeal was disposed off by a final order dated 30.1.2023. In view of the fact that certain important questions of law were not considered by this Court and since the judgment was not yet signed, the order dated 30.1.2023 was recalled. The matter was listed for reconsideration. Thereafter, the matter was heard on various dates.
3. The case of the writ petitioner is that an application was filed under Order 39 rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short "the CPC") before the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jabalpur on the ground that the opposite party has violated the order of status quo. The Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies considered the application under Order 39 rule 2A of the CPC and held the accused guilty of the same. The matter was referred to the High Court. The Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court on the administrative side passed an order on 9.11.2016 directing the Deputy Registrar to transmit the records of the case in a proper reference (memo) to the Registry of the High Court for taking appropriate action. Thereafter, the instant writ petition was filed. The instant writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the suit itself has been dismissed and as the order on the application under Order 39 rule 2A of the CPC was an interlocutory order, the same does not survive. Aggrieved by the same, a review petition was filed which was also rejected by order dated 28.7.2022. Hence, this appeal.
4. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order came to the conclusion that when the main proceedings pending before the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative, Jabalpur were disposed off, the question of entertaining the violation of any interim order will not arise for consideration. Questioning the same, the instant appeal was filed.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the question of contempt will remain irrespective of the disposal of the proceedings. The contempt would arise in view of the fact that there was an interim order granted on 24.2.2003. That the petitioner had filed an application under section 67(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 read with Order 39 rules 1 and 2 of the CPC which was allowed by the Deputy Registrar. The status quo was ordered to be maintained by the respondents therein over the plot in dispute. The said order was not complied with. That in spite of the order directing status quo, the respondents therein continued the construction over the property in question. Therefore, an application was filed by the appellant under Order 39 rule 2A of the CPC alleging breach of injunction. The application was referred to the District Judge, who returned the matter to the Deputy Registrar for sending it to the High Court being a contempt matter. The matter was sent to the Principal Registrar of the High Court, who returned the file to the Government to submit a proper reference as contemplated under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The matter was tried and by order dated 04.08.2016 the opposite party was found guilty of breach of injunction by the Deputy Registrar. The matter was resent to the Principal Registrar of the High Court, who again returned the matter to the Deputy Registrar for submission of a proper reference as per the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. Thereafter, the appellant filed the instant writ petition seeking a direction to the Deputy Registrar to act in accordance with the letters issued by the High Court. The learned Single Jud
Contempt jurisdiction should be reserved for matters that bring the administration of justice into contempt or unduly weaken it, and parties should not skip over effective alternative remedies and re....
An appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act is maintainable only against orders imposing punishment for contempt; non-punitive orders are not appealable.
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
