The judgment emphasized the importance of wilful disobedience and sincere apologies in contempt cases, highlighting the need for genuine remorse and contrition.

ORDER :

P Naveen Rao, J.

This Contempt case is filed alleging violation of the directions issued by this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in A.S.No.260 of 2017 dated 1.8.2019.

2. Briefly noted the facts are as under:

3. A.S.No.260 of 2017 is filed by the respondents and three others challenging the judgment and decree in O.S.No.101 of 2014 dated 21.12.2016 on the file of the District Judge, Mahaboobnagar. The petitioner is the sole respondent. In ASMP No.673 of 2017, the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 3.4.2017 stayed passing of final decree. This order is made absolute. While so, alleging that the appellants sold some of the suit schedule properties in spite of decree granted to her by the trial Court and trying to alienate some more, she filed I.A.No.1 of 2019 praying to grant injunction against the respondents not to alienate suit schedule properties. When the I.A., came up for consideration, on behalf of respondents/ appellants, learned counsel sought time to file counter. Taking due note of the fact that the appellants were resorting to sell suit schedule properties, the Division Bench passed following order on 1.8.2019:

“Sri N Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents/appellants, seeks time to file a counter.

However, as we find that the appellants have been executing sale deeds in relation to the property in Sy.No.156 of Pallabuzurg village, Narayanpet mandal, Mahaboobnagar Narayanpet district, which falls in item no.1 of the suit schedule property in relation to which preliminary decree was already passed, there shall be an injunction restraining the respondents/appellants from executing any further documents in relation to the land in the afore stated survey number, pending further orders. Post on 16.08.2019”

4. In this contempt case, petitioner alleges that in violation of the decree granted by the trial Court and interim orders of this court, the respondents have sold 177 sq yards in survey no.156 on 14.8.2019 vide document no. 9835 of 2019 registered in Sub Registrar Office, Narayanpet. Contending that by said action respondents have deliberately and wilfully violated the orders of this Court and thus committed contempt of this Court, prayed to punish them.

5. Once an order is passed by the Court, the order must be complied/observed in true letter and spirit.

6. Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines ‘civil contempt’ to mean wilful disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a Court.

7. Constitutional Courts have laid down principles on when to exercise contempt jurisdiction.

7.1. Disobedience of an order of court, whether prohibitive or mandatory, whether made ex parte or upon hearing both parties, or interim or perpetual, amounts to contempt if it is calculated or tends to interfere with the administration of justice, or brings it into disrespect or disregard (Jagarlmudi Chandramouli v. K.Appa Rao, 1967(1) An.W.R.129). The power, to punish for contempt, is exercised to prevent perversion of the course of justice. (Kapildeo Prasad Sah v. State of Bihar, (1999) 7 SCC 569).

7.2. Any interference with the course of justice is an affront to the majesty of law and the conduct of interference is punishable as contempt of court. Public interest demands that there should be no interference with the judicial process, and the effect of the judicial decision should not be pre-empted or circumvented. (Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Proprietors of Indian Express Newspapers Bombay (P) Ltd., (1988) 4 SCC 592).

7.3. If a party, who is fully in the know of the judgment/order of the Court, is conscious and aware of the consequences and implications of the order of the Court, acts in violation thereof, it must be held that disobedience is wilful. To establish contempt of court, it is sufficient to prove that the conduct was wilful, and that the contemnor knew of all the facts which made it a breach of the undertaking.

7.4. The