ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR)

This contempt proceeding is initiated by complainants against the respondent/accused for having deliberate and willful disobedience of the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP.No.1248/2022 (LB-RES) dated 23.06.2022 vide Annexure-A.

2. Learned counsel Sri S.K.Acharya for complainants and learned counsel Sri V.R.Balaraj for respondent/accused are present.

3. By the said order dated 23.06.2022, learned Single Judge directed Respondent No.2 to inspect the construction put up by the Respondent No.3 and submit a report whether the construction put up by the Respondent No. 3 is according to the plan sanctioned by it. It shall also report whether the Respondent No.3 has put up the construction in a larger area than what was proposed in the plan. Until then, the Respondent No. 3 is directed not to construct compound wall around his property.

4. Learned counsel for complainants has facilitated the reliance of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amit Kumar Das, Joint Secretary, a Registered Society Vs. Shrimati Hutheesingh Tagore Charitable Trust reported 2024 SCC Online SC 83. He also refers para No.14 of the judgment and submits that the said judgment is squarely applicable to the present case.

5. However, it is relevant to refer the order rendered by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CCC.No.703/2024 (Civil) dated 06.08.2024 wherein the Court observed as under:

‘2. This Court is not inclined to invoke and exercise the jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, in view that the petitioner has the remedy to approach the same Court for breach of injunction under the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.

3. Only on this ground without going into the merits and reserving liberty for the petitioner to avail the said recourse, the present petition is not entertainable and it stands disposed of.’

6. Further, it is also relevant to refer the judgment rendered by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CCC.No.896/2023 (Civil) dated 02.04.2024 wherein the Court observed as under:

‘2. The present contempt petition is in respect of the order dated 08.09.2021 passed by learned Single Judge in the pending Writ Petition No.16130 of 2021.

3. Evidently, the above order is interim order and that the parent proceedings are at large before learned Single Judge on merits. In that view, the contempt proceedings are not liable to be entertained.

5. Marking compliance of the direction, the Court records the statement made by learned advocate for respondent No.1. Even otherwise, the contempt proceedings are not entertainable and they are disposed of accordingly.’

7. However, it is relevant to refer the order rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Jhareswar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath Ganguly reported in (2002)

5 SCC 352 wherein at paragraph No.11 it is observed as under:

‘11. The purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the courts of law, since the respect and authority commanded by the courts of law are the greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizen and the democratic fabric of society will suffer if respect for the judiciary is undermined. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been introduced under the statute for the purpose of securing the feeling of confidence of the people in general for true and proper administration of justice in the country. The power to punish for contempt of court is a special power vested under the Constitution in the courts of record and also under the statute. The power is special and needs to be exercised with care and caution. It should be used sparingly by the courts on being satisfied regarding the true effect of contemptuous conduct. It is to be kept in mind that the court exercising the jurisdiction to punish for contempt does not function as an original or appellate court for determination of the disputes between the parties. The contempt jurisdiction should be confined to the question