IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 20th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD CCC NO. 83 OF 2019 (CIVIL) BETWEEN:
SHRI M. S. RAVIKUMAR SON OF SHIVAIAH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.152/2-2 1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN ANANTHARAMAIAH COMPOUND CHAMARAJAPET, BENGALURU – 560 072.
... COMPLAINANT (BY SRI. SOMASHEKHARAIAH. R. P., ADVOCATE) AND 1. SMT. SHOBHARANI WIFE OF N. VIJAYAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 2. SRI. NAGARAJU SON OF N. VIJAYAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.3132/25, 2ND CROSS, GAYATHRI NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 021.
(BY SRI. K. SHIVAJI RAO, ADVOCATE) ... ACCUSED THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, PRAYING TO (i) INITIATE CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ACCUSED FOR WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDERS PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.839 OF 2018 DATED 10.09.2018 AND ORDER DATED 25.09.2018 UNDER ANNEXURE-A AND B AND SENTENCE THEM FOR IMPRISONMENT.
THIS CCC COMING ON FOR HEARING BEFORE FRAMING OF CHARGES THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This contempt petition is filed on the ground that the orders dated 10.09.2018 and 25.09.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in Regular First Appeal No.839 of 2018, have been disobeyed.
2. In terms of the said orders, the respondent therein was directed not to put up further construction in Site No.53, but was permitted to carry out the construction work in Site No.52. The plea of the complainant is that the construction is being put up in site No.53. Therefore, we have considered the suit schedule properties. The schedule mentioned with regard to the claimed site No.53 is quite different from the property of the accused. The schedule property of the accused is different.
3. It is needless to state that the interim order can always be referable to the schedule properties and nothing beyond that. Prima facie, the material on record would indicate that the property of the accused bears a different schedule than the suit schedule properties. Therefore, we do not find that any contempt is committed. Hence, the proceedings are dropped.
SD/- SD/-
JUDGE JUDGE SA