IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P.NO.62163/2016 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SMT. PUTTAMALLAMMA W/O. LATE SIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT MADGARLINGAIAHANA HUNDI VILLAGE, SOSALE HOBLI, T. NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSORE DIST. – 571124 (BY SRI. KESHAVA MURTHY.B, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. MR. NANJAIAH S/O. LATE CHANNAMALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, 2. MR. RAMESHA S/O. MR. NANJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 3. MR. SHIVANNA S/O. MR. NANJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, 4. SMT. MAHADEVAMMA W/O. MR. NANJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, ALL R/AT MADGARLINGAIAHANA ...PETITIONER HUNDI VILLAGE, SOSALE HOBLI, T.NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSORE DIST. – 571 124 ...RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 03.03.2016 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, T.NARASIMPURA, IN MIS. NO.3/2016, IN DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED BY PETITIONER UNDER ORDER SECTION 2 (b) R/W SECTION 12 OF CONTEMPT OF COURT AT, 1971, WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNX-A AND ALLOW THIS PETITION.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard Sri. Keshava Murthy B, learned counsel appearing for petitioner. Perused the records.
2. Petitioner herein filed a suit O.S.No.5/2003 for the relief of partition and separate possession and by judgment and decree dated 03.09.2011 said suit came to be decreed. For drawing up of final decree, proceedings in FDP No.1/2012 was initiated, which also came to be allowed and final decree was drawn by judgment and decree dated 27.07.2013. In execution No.8/2014 filed by the petitioner possession of the properties allotted to petitioner’s share is said to have been delivered and as such, execution petition came to be closed on 17.01.2015. It is thereafter respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein have filed a suit O.S.No.227/2015 against the petitioner and her son Sri.Guruswamy as per Annexure-E to declare that they are the absolute owners of suit properties I to III described thereunder.
3. Petitioner herein filed a Miscellaneous Petition No.3/2016 against the respondents herein under Section 2(b) read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for taking cognizance against respondents herein for filing said suit, alleging that it is frivolous, false, vexatious in miscellaneous No.3/2016 and prayed for respondents being put in civil prison with exemplary fine.
4. Trial Court by the impugned order dated 03.03.2016 – Annexure-A has dismissed the petition and rightly so, on the ground that possession of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, cannot be invoked before the Civil Court. Order passed by the trial Court reads as under:
“7. The question that would arise as to whether the petition under Contempt of Court Act lies before the Civil Court. As per section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka shall have jurisdiction to inquire into or try a contempt of itself or of any Court sub-ordinate to it. This Court has not jurisdiction to enquire into and try the offence under Contempt of Courts Act 1971. At the outset, this Court has no jurisdiction to try the cases under Contempt of Civil Courts Act. Hence, I answer the point No.1 in the negative.”
5. Said order is in consonance with the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and it does not call for interference, since under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, it is this Court which will have jurisdiction to inquire into any alleged contempt. No grounds. Hence, writ petition stands rejected.
SD/- JUDGE DR