This contempt petition is arising out of the order

dated 07.02.2022, passed in W.P.No.22358/2021.

2. The complainant has filed this contempt

petition alleging that the complainant filed a suit in

O.S.No.461/2021 on the file of Principal Civil Judge,

Devanahalli.

The

trial

Court

vide

order

dated

01.12.2021, declined to grant ex parte order of

temporary injunction against Bangalore International

Airport Ltd. (8BIAL9 for short). The complainant filed a

writ petition in W.P.No.22358/2021 against the said

order. This court vide order dated 07.12.2021, granted

an ad-interim order restraining the BIAL from interfering

with the complainant9s possession of the subject

premises, until further orders. This court vide order

dated 07.02.2022, disposed of the writ petition directing

4

the trial Court to consider and dispose of I.A.No.1 in

accordance with law and while disposing of the writ

petition, the learned counsel for BIAL undertook that the

BIAL will not precipitate the matter without prejudice to

the stand taken in the writ petition and objections to

I.A.No.1 till the disposal of I.A.No.1 by the trial Court.

This undertaking was placed on record. The trial Court

after hearing the parties allowed the application filed by

the complainant vide order dated 03.03.2022. The BIAL

preferred

a

writ

petition

in

W.P.No.6853/2022

challenging the order passed on I.A.No.1. This court

disposed of the writ petition reserving liberty to the

BIAL to prefer an appeal as it is an appealable order.

The BIAL aggrieved by the order passed on I.A.No.1,

preferred an appeal in M.A.No.14/2022. The Appellate

Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the

trial Court to reconsider I.A.No.1. It is the grievance of

the complainant that, in violation of the undertaking

given by the respondents before this court, more than

30 employees/staff belonging to BIAL forcibly entered

5

into the store of the complainant and threw the entire

staff of the complainant out of the premises and put an

obstruction to the entry of the staff into their store. It

is contended that the respondent No.1 has deliberately

and willfully violated the undertaking. Hence this

contempt petition.

3. Heard learned counsel for the complainant and

learned Senior Counsel Sri. Sajan Poovayya for the

accused.

4. Learned counsel for the complainant submits

that the accused No.1 gave an undertaking that the

accused No.1 will not precipitate the matter till the

disposal of I.A.No.1 and inspite of the said undertaking,

accused No.1 along with accused Nos.2 to 7 forcibly

caused obstruction to the complainant in carrying on

business.

He

submits

that

accused

No.1

has

deliberately and willfully disobeyed the undertaking

given before this court. He submits that the accused

6

have violated the undertaking and hence prays to pass

necessary orders.

5. Per contra, learned Senior counsel submits that

the complainant is guilty of suppression of material

facts. He submits that the complainant filed a

Commercial O.S.No.1028/2021 seeking for a permanent

injunction against BIAL from dispossession and the said

suit was withdrawn without reserving any liberty to file

a fresh suit on the same cause of action. He submits

that the complainant by suppressing the said fact, filed

a suit in O.S.No.461/2021 on the file of Principal Civil

Judge & JMFC, Devanahalli. He further submits that

though accused No.1 gave an undertaking before this

court,

subsequently

the

trial

Court

allowed

the

application I.A.No.1 filed by the complainant. The said

order was set aside in M.A.No.14/2022 and Appellate

Court remitted the matter to the trial Court to

reconsider I.A.No.1 afresh. He submits that the trial

Court after hearing the parties rejected I.A.No.1 and

7

also returned the plaint on the ground that it has no

jurisdiction and permitted to present the plaint before

the competent court, vide judgment dated 29.09.2022.

He submits that any interim order/undertaking would

merge with the final order. Hence he