THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3164 of 2014 Dated: 25.09.2014 Between:
Smt. C. Balamani and others. .. Petitioners and Sri G. Seshagiri Rao .. Respondent Counsel for the petitioners: Mr. Vikram Ragi Counsel for the respondent: Mr. G. Seshagiri Rao Party-in-person The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This civil revision petition is filed against docket order dated 24.06.2014 in R.C.No.4 of 2009 on the file of the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Malkajgiri, whereby she has observed that the petitioners have not complied with condition No.1 imposed by this Court by order dated 27.09.2012 in C.R.P.Nos.1346 and 1412 of 2012.
I have heard Mr. Vikram Ragi, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. G. Seshagiri Rao, the respondent appearing as party-in- person.
The brief background in which this civil revision petition arises is stated hereunder:
The petitioners have filed R.C.No.4 of 2009 before the lower Court for eviction of the respondent. The lower Court has closed the evidence on the petitioners’ side for their not adducing evidence. Therefore, they have filed I.A.Nos.1300 and 1301 of 2011 for re- opening the evidence and recalling P.W.1 for cross-examination. These two applications were dismissed by the lower Court by common order dated 18.01.2012. Feeling aggrieved by the said common order, the petitioners filed C.R.P.Nos.1346 and 1412 of 2012. Both the revision petitions were allowed on 27.09.2012, by setting aside the common order dated 18.01.2012, subject to the following conditions:
1) The petitioners-landlords shall pay Rs.5,000/-
(Rupees five thousand only) to the respondent- tenant within a period of one week; and
2) the petitioners-landlords shall adduce their entire evidence on 19-10-2012 to which date R.C.No.4 of 2009 stands posted.
The respondent has filed two contempt cases vide C.C.Nos.1686 and 1687 of 2012 against the petitioners for the alleged violation of condition No.1 stipulated by this Court in the above- mentioned order. He has also filed Review C.R.P.M.P.No.2499 of 2013 for reviewing the above-mentioned order dated 27.09.2012 so far as C.R.P.No.1346 of 2012 is concerned. The sole ground on which the respondent has filed both the sets of cases is that though time of one week stipulated by this Court for deposit of costs has expired on 04.10.2012, the costs were not deposited. The learned Single Judge, who has earlier disposed of C.R.P.Nos.1346 and 1412 of 2012, has dismissed the contempt cases as well as Review C.R.P.M.P.No.2499 of 2013. It is instructive to reproduce the relevant paragraphs of the order dated 10.06.2013 in the contempt cases as under:
“3. It is the grievance of the petitioner-tenant that the respondents-landlords have not paid the amount of Rs.5,000/- within a period of one week. The respondents-landlords filed counter resisting the application. They stated in the counter that they deposited Rs.5,000/- on 09-10-2012 vide demand draft Nos.007512 and 007513 dated 09-10-2012. When the contempt cases came up for consideration, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.
4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-tenant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents-landlords.
5. The respondents-landlords have specifically stated in the counter that they deposited Rs.5,000/- by way of demand draft Nos.007512 and 007513 dated 09-10-2012. The said deposit of Rs.5,000/- amounts to substantial compliance of order dated 27-09-2012. Accordingly, I find that the contention of the petitioner-tenant that the respondents-landlords have violated the Order dated 27-09-2012, has no substance.”
L.P.A.No.3 of 2013 filed by the respondent against the order in one of the contempt cases i.e. C.C.No.1687 of 2012 was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on the ground that the L.P.A. was not maintainable. The respondent has not carried the matter further. Accordingly, the order in the contempt cases has become final. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the Review C.R.P.M.P.No.2499 of 2013 also, by order dated 27.06.2013, with the following observations:
“As seen from the material placed on record, the respondents/landlords deposited a sum of Rs.5,000/- by way of Demand Draft bearing Nos.007512 and 007513 dated 9-10-2012 and filed memo before the trial Court. They also stated in the memo that they have no other evidence except P.W.1 whose chief affidavit has already been placed on record. It is the turn of the petitioner/tenant to cross-examine P.W.1. In that view of the matter, I find that the petitioner-tenant failed to make out any valid ground to recall the order dated 27-09-2012 passed in C.R.P.No.1346 of 2012.”
Thereafter, the lower Court has passed the docket order referred to above, a perusal of which would show that it has gone behind the order dated 10.06.2013 passed in C.C.Nos.1686 and 1687 of 2012. In my opinion, the lower Court had no power or authority to render a finding contrary to the findings rendered by this Court in the said order and also in the order dated 27.06.2013 in Review C.R.P.M.P.No.2499 of 2013.
The respondent has placed reliance on the order dated 30.10.2013 in Application Nos.912 and 913 of 2013 in C.C.Nos.1686 and 1687 of 2012. A perusal of this order would show that the same came to be passed on the two applications filed by the respondent for being mentioned. This Court wonders as to how such applications were maintainable at all. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, does not provide for the remedy of review. Once an order has been passed in the contempt case, unless the same is reversed in an appeal, such an order cannot be rendered ineffective in any manner even by the court which passed such order. Therefore, the observations made by the learned Judge in his order dated 30.10.2013 in Application Nos.912 and 913 of 2013 do not have the effect of effacing the findings rendered in orders dated 10.06.2013 and 27.06.2013 and consequently the lower Court cannot take liberty of rendering a contra finding to that rendered by the learned Judge in his order dated 10.06.2013, while disposing of C.C.Nos.1686 and 1687 of 2012.
On the analysis as above, this Court is of the opinion that the lower Court has committed a serious impropriety in holding that the petitioners have not substantially complied with the order of this Court. There is another angle from which this dispute needs to be examined. The only controversy between the parties is whether the petitioners are entitled to adduce their evidence in pursuance of the order dated 27.09.2012 in C.R.P.Nos.1346 and 1412 of 2012. The petitioners have taken the stand that as they have already filed the chief- examination affidavit of P.W.1, they have no further evidence to be adduced and that cross-examination of P.W.1 is all that is needed to be done. The respondent has been making heavy weather of the whole controversy, because, at the worst, he will be faced with the situation of the evidence of the petitioners gone on record, if he is permitted to cross-examine P.W.1. The respondent, for obvious reasons, does not want the evidence of the petitioners to go on record. In my opinion, the respondent is not litigating bona fide and is trying to ensure that the evidence from the petitioners’ side is eschewed. Such an approach of a litigant cannot be encouraged by any court.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the impugned docket order of the lower Court is set aside. The lower Court is directed to permit P.W.1 to be cross-examined by the respondent and dispose of R.C.No.4 of 2009 as expeditiously as possible and not later than three months from the date of receipt of this order.
The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed.
As a sequel to the allowing of the civil revision petition, C.R.P.M.P.No.4344 of 2014 stands disposed of as infructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 25th September, 2014 IBL