IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH CCC NO.691 OF 2017 (CIVIL) BETWEEN:
SMT. P. SUMA WIFE OF SRI. CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.1033 SRINAGAR PIPELINE 16TH MAIN ROAD, 1ST STAGE BANASHANKARI BENGALURU-560 050. ... COMPLAINANT (BY SRI. NAIK N.R., ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI. KRISHNAMURTHY SWAMY MANAGING TRUSTEE SRI. BANASHANKARI SEVA TRUST (REGISTERED) NO.14, PIPELINE WEAVING COLONY NETHRAVATHI RIVER ROAD BENGALURU-560 050. ... ACCUSED (BY SRI. N.S. VIJAYANTH BABU, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAVINDRA V. REDDY, ADVOCATE) THIS CONTEMPT PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT PRAYING TO CALL THE ACCUSED BEFORE THIS COURT BY INITIATING CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS IN PURSUANCE OF ORDER PASSED BY THIS COURT IN RFA NO.1781 OF 2013 DATED 15.03.2017, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURES-A AND B AND PUNISH THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
THIS CONTEMPT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 23.09.2019, COMING ON THIS DAY, H.P. SANDESH J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This contempt petition is filed under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act praying to initiate contempt proceedings against the accused for violation of the order passed in RFA No.1781/2013 dated 15.3.2017 and punish the accused in accordance with law and grant such other relief as deems fit in the circumstances of the case.
2. Brief facts of the case are:
The complainant is the absolute owner of the site bearing No.980, Brindavan nagar, Nethravathi river road, Corporation Division No.52, Bangalore, measuring east to west on northern side 25 feet, southern side 35 feet, north to south including passage 60 feet and the same was purchased under absolute registered sale deed dated 12.8.2004. The complainant had filed suit in O.S.No.8402/2004 and the same was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the same, he preferred R.F.A.No.1781/2013. When the matter was listed for admission, this Court was pleased to pass an order directing both the parties to maintain status-quo till the next date of hearing vide Order dated 27.11.2013. The said order was subsequently extended on 15.3.2017. The accused knowing fully well the pendency of the appeal and that there is an interim order, still started illegal construction with an intention to deprive the right of the complainant. Hence, on 20.3.2017, the complainant gave the complaint before the Assistant Executive Engineer stating that the accused had started illegal construction without sanction plan or permission from the concerned authorities. Even then the interim order of status quo was violated and work was continued. Hence, another complaint was given to Hanumanthnagar police station on 22.3.2017. It is contended that the illegal and unauthorized construction is in clear violation of the order passed by this Court and the accused has committed an offence of willful disobedience of the order of this Court, which amounts to contempt. The photographs are also produced to evidence the fact of work undertaken by the accused in violation of the interim order.
3. In pursuance of this complaint, this Court has issued notice against the accused and the accused appeared through counsel and filed objection statement contending that the complainant illegally entered into the premises of the accused and demolished the side wall of the temple and in view of the said act committed by the complainant, the accused gave complaint before Hanumanthnagara police station. The police have registered the case against the complainant in Reference No.110/2017 on 12.3.2017 and also issued an endorsement on 15.3.2017 by directing the accused to settle this matter before the concerned jurisdictional Court of law. The complainant has moved the case before this Court on 15.3.2017 and this Court was pleased to extend the interim order directing both the parties to maintain status-quo till next date of hearing. It is contended that interim order was not extended when the matter was listed on 5.2.2016 and 1.3.2016 and interim order was continued only on 15.3.2017. In between 2014 to 2017 there was no interim order. The complainant taking advantage of the interim order of status-quo even though the accused had not put up any construction and maintained the status-quo order, has filed this false civil contempt case against the accused to get advantage of the circumstances. It is contended that the accused is running a Temple Trust and also doing the job of priest in the temple. Accused is running the temple by having common interest and by taking advantage of this, complainant has filed original suit seeking easement right on the property of the temple run by the accused and the complainant was not successful in the said suit. In pursuance of the order of this Court to maintain status-quo a false proceeding has been initiated against the accused. The accused has maintained status- quo till today over the schedule property and not violated any order and there was no any willful disobedience on the part of the accused and accordingly, prayed this Court to dismiss the contempt petition.
4. Having considered the pleadings and also the statement of objections filed by the accused and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court has framed charges against the accused. The accused denied the charges leveled against him and his plea also was recorded. The complainant in order to substantiate her contention examined herself as C.W.1 and got marked the documents Exs.P1 to P6, on the other hand, the accused also examined himself as D.W.1. Thereafter, this Court has recorded the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and heard the arguments of learned counsel for both the parties.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant, in his arguments, has vehemently contended that this Court in RFA No.1781/2013 has passed an order of status-quo vide Ex.P3 and the said order was extended in terms of Ex.P4. The complainant also filed the complaint before the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and also before the police vide Exs.P1 and P2. The photographs Exs.P5 and P6 clearly discloses that the accused in spite of the order, has undertaken the construction work. The very act of the accused is in violation of the order of this Court. The materials placed before the Court clearly discloses that there was willful disobedience of the order of this Court and hence, the accused may be punished.
6. Per-contra, learned counsel appearing for the accused, in his arguments, has vehemently contended that Ex.P3 is the order passed by this Court on 27.11.2013 wherein an order of status-quo was granted till the next date of hearing and though the matter was listed on several occasions the said order was not extended. The order was extended only on 15.3.2017. There was no order of status quo in between 2014 to 15.3.2017. The accused only put up the foundation work and not undertaken any further construction and hence, prayed this Court to dismiss the contempt petition.
7. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the complainant counsel and also the learned counsel for the accused, the points that arise for our consideration are:
(i) Whether accused has violated the order of this Court dated 15.3.2017 and whether the conduct of the accused amounts to willful disobedience of the order of this Court and whether he is liable to be punished under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act?
(ii) What order?
8. Point Nos.1 and 2:
Having considered the contentions of learned counsel for the respective parties, first, this Court would like to mention the undisputed facts available before the Court.
9. The fact that complainant had filed O.S.No.8402/2004 and the same came to be dismissed vide order dated 8.10.2013 is not in dispute. Both the parties also do not dispute the fact of this Court granting an order of status-quo till the next date of hearing vide order dated 27.11.2013. The dispute is with regard to not extending the order of status-quo from the year 2014 to 15.3.2017. The contempt petition is also filed for the violation of interim order dated 15.03.2017.
10. It is the contention of the complainant that the order of status-quo was subsequently extended and has placed on record the copy of the order dated 15.3.2017, which is marked as Ex.P4. The complainant in the evidence also has reiterated the pleadings of the complaint. It is her evidence that in spite of the said order the accused attempted to put up construction on the suit schedule property and though she informed not to do so, accused continued to put up construction. Hence, she had lodged the complaint with the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and also the police in terms of Exs.P1 and P2. The complainant also produced photographs as per Exs.P5 and P6. In the cross-examination it is elicited that after lodging various complaints before the police the accused stopped putting up the construction. It is also suggested that no wall was constructed by the accused and there was no interim order when the alleged construction was put up by the accused and the said suggestions were denied.
11. The accused to substantiate his defence has examined himself as D.W.1. In his evidence he claims that the interim order had expired on 20.10.2014. Till 15.3.2017 there was no interim order. During the said period from 2014 and 2017 there were altercations between him and the complainant. He had also filed a complaint in the Hanumanthnagar police station against the complainant. He reiterates that he has not violated the interim order. He was subjected to cross-examination.
In the cross-examination it is elicited that he does not have a plan sanctioned to put up any construction. However, he volunteers that since the construction is for the temple, he proceeded with the construction. He also admits that complainant had lodged a complaint against him before the Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and also the police. But he claims that he completed the construction between 20.10.2014 and 15.3.2017. It is elicited that interim order subsists even as on the date except for the period from 20.10.2014 to 15.3.2017. It is suggested that there was an interim order between the said period also, but the same was denied.
12. Having considered both oral and documentary evidence available on record, the nutshell of the dispute between the parties is that, there was an order to maintain status-quo by both the parties. It is the contention of the complainant that even subsequent to extending of the order of status-quo dated 15.3.2017, the accused took up the construction work. The complainant in order to prove the said contention relied upon the photographs which are marked as Exs.P5 and P6. Ex.P5 is dated 20.3.2017. In the cross-examination of the complainant, she has not disputed with regard to the date of work undertaken by the accused on 20.3.2017. But it is the contention of the accused that when there was no interim order from 20.10.2014 to 15.3.2017 he has put up the construction. The said contention cannot be accepted. We have already pointed out that photographs were not disputed by the accused, which discloses that foundation work was done on 20.3.2017. However, it is elicited from the cross- examination of C.W.1 that no further construction was undertaken and further it is elicited that no wall was constructed by the accused. It is the evidence of the complainant that after lodging the complaint with the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahangara Palike, their officials came and stopped all further constructions. It is also clearly admitted by the complainant that after lodging various complaints before the police, the accused stopped putting up construction. The complaints which are marked as Exs.P1 and P2 also discloses that the complaints were given before the concerned authorities on 20.3.2017 i.e., subsequent to the interim order and having taken note of the admission elicited from the mouth of C.W.1 and also the evidence of D.W.1, the material does not disclose anything about the accused having continued the construction work and only foundation work was undertaken. Hence, we are of the opinion that there was no any willful disobedience of the order of this Court. The fact that there was no order of status-quo, in existence, in between the period from 20.10.2014 to 15.3.2017 is not in dispute. But it is an admitted fact that the interim order earlier granted vide order dated 27.11.2013 has been extended subsequently on 15.3.2017. Having considered the same, we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case to punish the accused for the offence punishable under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. It is a settled principle that in order to invoke the contempt proceedings, there must be willful disobedience. In the case on hand, no such willful disobedience is established and when the complaint was given before the concerned authorities, the accused has not proceeded with the construction. The punishment, in a contempt proceeding, has to be invoked sparingly. In view of the discussions made above, we pass the following:
ORDER The Complaint is dismissed. However, the accused is warned not to precipitate the mater till the disposal of the Regular First Appeal No.1781/2013.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE bkp