Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Guj) 1119

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BHARGAV D. KARIA, L.S. PIRZADA, JJ.
Lhr of Deceased Hiralal Somabhai Contractor & Ors. - Applicants
Versus
Lhr of Deceased Harshadrai Somabhai Bhandari & Ors. - Opponents
Misc. Civil Application (For Contempt) No. 671 of 2024 In Misc. Civil Application No. 121 of 2018 In Special Civil Application No. 16266 of 2013 With Misc. Civil Application No. 331 of 2026
Decided On : 23-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant : Mr. Nachiket A. Dave.
For the Opponents :Mr. Mihir Joshi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Digant M. Popat, Mr. Dilip L. Kanojiya.

Civil contempt arises from the willful breach of an undertaking given to the court. While the court may nullify contumacious transactions, it cannot expand contempt orders to include secondary relief like eviction or demolition where no specific prior directive exists and compliance with existing sanctions is evident.

Headnote:(A) Contempt of Court - Civil Contempt - Undertaking given to court - Breach of - Effect - An undertaking given by a party to the court forms a solemn commitment whose willful breach invokes provisions of civil contempt. (Para 116)

(B) Civil Contempt - Compliance - Scope of directions - Determination of - Whether an order intended to mandate demolition or eviction in the absence of specific findings - Held, contempt jurisdiction is confined to the majesty of law and cannot be expanded to adjudicate substantive property rights or order restorative measures beyond the specific scope of the original order. (Paras 22, 23)

(C) Contempt Jurisdiction - Scope and Limit - Contempt proceedings are distinct from civil suits - The court may nullify contumacious transactions to preserve the majesty of law but cannot impose further burdens on parties where prior directives were complied with and where the property status was fixed before the undertaking. (Paras 25)

Facts of the case:
The applicants alleged ongoing contempt by the respondents, claiming failure to restore property to its original position as an open land and execution of subsequent unauthorized transfers. The respondents contended that they had complied with all prior monetary penalties, incarceration, and cancellation of sale deeds, and argued that the land was already developed and not vacant at the time the initial undertaking was recorded.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the respondents had fulfilled the directives regarding payment of fines, costs, and the setting aside of the sale deeds. The claim that the respondents failed to restore the land to "open" status was rejected as evidence showed the land contained structures prior to the relevant court order. The court concluded that it served no purpose to equate contempt proceedings with land eviction or demolition processes in the absence of clear, underlying orders to that effect.

Issues: The main issues were whether the respondents willfully violated the previous order regarding the restoration of the property status and whether subsequent land transfers were covered by the original undertaking given to the court.

Ratio Decidendi: While an undertaking given to the court necessitates strict compliance, the court must distinguish between willful disobedience and the factual impossibility of restoring property conditions that pre-existed the undertaking. Contempt jurisdiction is exercised to uphold the court's authority, not to provide additional civil remedies like eviction that are not expressly ordered.

Result: Applications dismissed.

Table of Content
1. historical context of the contempt proceedings and prior court orders. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. parties' conflicting contentions regarding compliance with previous judicial orders. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
3. assessment of factual evidence determining compliance status. (Para 21 , 22)
4. contempt orders apply only to disputed subject matter, not pre-existing property interests. (Para 23 , 24 , 25)
5. formal dismissal of contempt applications due to lack of merit. (Para 26)

ORDER :

BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Nachiket A. Dave appearing for the applicant, learned Senior Advocate Mr.Mihir Joshi appearing with learned advocate Mr.Digant M. Popat for the respondent Nos.1.1 to 1.4 and learned advocate Mr.Dilip L. Kanojiya appearing for respondent Nos.2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.5.

2. Misc. Civil Application No. 671 of 2024 and Misc. Civil Application No. 331 of 2026 have been filed by the applicants alleging contempt of the Order dated 14.10.2015, wherein a statement was made before this Hon’ble Court, which reads as under:

“It is stated at the Bar by Mr. Sanjanwala learned senior advocate, on instructions from his clients, that the property qua the subject matter of this entry and the petition, shall not be sold out till the main petition is heard and decided, which satisfies the conscious of Mr. Mihir Thakor learned senior advocate appearing with Mr. Prabhav Mehta learned advocate and he states that he may not press the Letters Patent Appeal, on instructions. Hence, this Civil Application stands disposed of accordingly. It goes without saying that the order was passed adinvitum/by consent of the learned advocates.”

3. The brief facts of the case are as under:

3.1. Special Civil Application No. 16266 of 2013 was filed challenging the Order dated 18.09.2013 passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department, wherein Mutation Entry No. 2015, i.e. the entry of succession of deceased Somabhai Kanjibhai, was challenged with regard to the land bearing Survey Nos. 63 and 65 situated at Village Majura, Taluka Majura, District Surat. which is still pending for adjudication before the learned Single Judge.

3.2 Civil Application (for Direction) No. 11412 of 2015 was filed in Special Civil Application No. 16266 of 2013, wherein the following Order was passed on 14.10.2015:

“It is stated at the Bar by Mr. Sanjanwala learned senior advocate, on instructions from his clients, that the property qua the subject of this entry and the petition, shall not be sold out till the main petition is heard and decided, which satisfies the conscious of Mr. Mihir Thakor learned senior advocate appearing with Mr. Prabhav Mehta learned advocate and he states that he may not press the Letters Patent Appeal, on instructions. Hence, this Civil Application stands disposed of accordingly. It goes without saying that the order was passed adinvitum/by consent of the learned advocates.”

3.3 The applicant thereafter preferred Misc. Civil Application No. 121 of 2018 under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short, “the Act”), alleging that some parcels of land were sold by the opponents, and therefore there is non-compliance of the Order dated 14.10.2015 passed by this Court in Civil Application (for Direction) No. 11412 of 2015 in Special Civil Application No. 16266 of 2013.

3.4 Misc. Civil Application No. 121 of 2018 was allowed by a detailed Order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench vide Order dated 13.07.2022. The operative portion of the Order reads as under:

“63. For the reasons aforestated, we proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

(1) We hold that accused Nos. 3.1 to 3.4 and accused No. 4 guilty of Contempt for their deliberate and willful disobedience of the undertaking given to this Court which came to be recorded by order dated 14.10.2015 passed in Special Civil Application No. 16266 of 2013.

(ii) We impose cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) on accused Nos.3.1 and 3.2 i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document