Contempt proceedings cannot proceed when underlying issues are pending appeal, and lawful compliance with court orders is vital for just outcomes.

ORDER :

G. RADHA RANI, J.

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner - respondent -defendant aggrieved by the show cause notice dated 21.07.2022 in I.A.No.250 of 2018 in O.S.No.57 of 2017 issued by the learned Principal District Judge, Jangaon calling upon the petitioner to appear and participate in the preliminary enquiry on 04.08.2022 and thereafter to initiate action under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

2. Heard Sri C.M.R.Velu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri J.Kanakaiah, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Narendar Jelli, learned counsel for the respondents on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order dated 19.03.2019 in I.A.No.250 of 2018 in O.S.No.57 of 2017 was the subject matter of C.R.P.No.846 of 2022, which was pending adjudication. There could not be a contempt when the order under which the contempt was passed, had been challenged before this Court. The contempt arose for not producing the agreement of sale. After the registered sale deeds were executed, the order directing to produce the agreement of sale was not valid. The same was passed basing on a recorded audio conversation, which was not admissible, as such prayed to set aside the show cause notice dated 21.07.2022 in I.A.No.250 of 2018 in O.S.No.57 of 2017 issued by the learned Principal District Judge, Jangaon.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contended that no stay was granted by this Court in C.R.P.No.846 of 2022, as such the Court below could proceed to take action for non-compliance of its order. Mere pendency of CRP would not debar the Court below in proceeding with the matter. The Court below was justified in ordering the petitioner to show cause as to why a reference could not be made to the High Court for initiation of action under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and prayed to dismiss the revision.

5. Perused the record.

6. The revision was filed challenging the show cause notice issued by the learned Principal District Judge, Jangaon calling upon the petitioner to appear and participate in the preliminary enquiry as to why a reference could not be made to the High Court for initiation of action against him under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The basis for issuing the said show cause notice is for not producing original agreement of sale dated 10.06.2015 as directed by the Court. Admittedly, a revision vide CRP No.846 of 2022 was filed challenging the order in I.A .No.250 of 2018 dated 19.03.2019, wherein a direction was given to produce the original agreement of sale dated 10.06.2015 and the same was pending adjudication. The counsel for the defendants 1 to 7 filed a memo before the concerned Court reporting about preferring C.R.P.No.846 of 2022 against the order in respect of production of documents. Admittedly, no stay was granted by this Court in C.R.P.No.846 of 2022. But, however, I.A.No.2 of 2022 was filed in C.R.P.No.1722 of 2022 and an interim order was passed on 03.08.2022 granting interim stay on issuing show cause notice to the petitioner herein. As seen from the order passed in I.A.No.348 of 2018 in O.S.No.57 of 2017 dated 19.03.2019, the Court allowed the petition receiving the CD and pen drive subject to the petitioners - plaintiffs therein producing the original device through with they recorded the conversation between them and the defendants' counsel. It was reported by the counsel for the revision petitioner that the said condition was not complied by the respondents - plaintiffs till date and the original device through which the conversation was recorded by them with the defendants' counsel was not produced before the Court. Without producing the original devic