IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 1152 OF 2022 BETWEEN:

1. MANJULA DEVI W/O LATE MOHAN LAL JAIN AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS

2. VINOD KUMAR S/O LATE MOHAN LAL JAIN AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

3. ALKESH KUMAR S/O LATE MOHAN LAL JAIN AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS Digitally signed by SU MATHY KANNAN 4. RAKESH KUMAR Location: HIGH S/O LATE MOHAN LAL JAIN COURT OF AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS KARNATAKA ALL ARE REP. BY GPA HOLDER COMPLAINANT NO.2 ALL ARE R/O CANARA BANK ROAD CHIKKAMAGALURU CHIKKAMAGALURU 577101.

…COMPLAINANTS (BY MS. TEJASWINI – ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SIDDAPPA B M -

ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. BANUMATHI @ SHAKILA BANU W/O H.S. SANNA SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/O DONIKANA EXTESNION CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT 577 101.

2. RAJESH S/O H.S. SANNA SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/O DONIKANA EXTESNION CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT 577 101.

3. MANOJ S/O H.S. SANNA SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/O DONIKANA EXTESNION CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT 577 101.

4. H.S. JAGADISH S/O LATE SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/O HIREMANGALURU VILLAGE CHIKKAMAGALURU 577 102.

5. H.S. RAVIKUMAR S/O LATE SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/O HIREMANGALURU VILLAGE CHIKKAMAGALURU 577 102.

6. KAMALAMMA @ AMMAIAHA W/O CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS HOUSE WIFE R/O HIREMAGALURU VILLAGE CHIKKAMAGALURU 577 102.

7. H.S. HALAMMA W/O SAGANAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/O MAN ROAD INDAVARA VILLAGE AND PSOT CHIKKAMGALURU TALUK 577 101.

8. JISHAN B S S/O AHMED CHAN AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/O PAI LAYOUT NEAR WATER TANK, UPPALLI CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT.

9. LOKESH N S/O NARAYANARAO AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/O MUKTA HOME APPLIANCE M.G. ROAD CHIKKAMAGALURU.

…ACCUSED (BY SRI.ABHAY – ADVOCATE FOR SRI SANTHOSH S NAGARALE – ADVOCATE FOR ACCUSED NO.8 AND 9(VAKALATH FILED ON

29.01.2025)

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR HAVING DISOBEYED THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN RFA NO.1128/2021 DATED 07.12.2021 AND PUNISH THE ACCUSED.

THIS CCC, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

ORAL ORDER

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

This contempt petition is initiated by complainants against respondents/accused in view of non-compliance of the order passed by this Court in RFA.No.1128/2021 dated

07.12.2021.

2. Learned counsel Smt Tejaswini appears for learned counsel Sri Siddappa B.M who is on record for complainants. Learned counsel Sri Abhay appears for learned counsel Sri Santhosh S Nagarale who is on record for respondents.

3. Learned counsel for complainants submits that RFA.No.1128/2021 is pending for consideration.

4. However, it is relevant to refer the order rendered by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CCC.No.1237/2022 (Civil) dated 26.03.2023 wherein para No.3 indicates as When the order is an interim order, by its very nature it does not determine rights of the parties finally. There are no trappings of finality in the order. In the aforesaid view, this Court is not inclined to entertain the contempt petition and it is not persuaded to exercise the power of contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Para No.4 indicates as It will be open for the complainant to raise all contentions and work out its rights and remedies in the main proceedings in accordance with law.

5. It is also relevant to refer the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Prithawi Nath Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others reported in (2004) 7 SCC 261 wherein it is observed that Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Ss.2(b), 11 and 15-disoberdience of interim order-impermissibility- Even if interim order is subsequently vacated or relief refused to a party in the main proceeding, held, it cannot justify disobedience of such interim order by