IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 13th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD CCC NO. 2031 OF 2018 (CIVIL) BETWEEN:
SMT. S. RAJESHWARI WIFE OF N. LAKSHMAN, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.14, 1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN ROAD, NAL LAYOUT, BENGALURU- 560 041.
(BY SRI. SADASHIVA D., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. MR. SRINIVAS SON OF HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.
2. MRS. JAYANTHI WIFE OF SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.1262, 32ND G CROSS, 28TH MAIN ROAD, ... COMPLAINANT 4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU- 560 041.
(BY SRI. CHETAN B. ANGADI, ADVOCATE) .. ACCUSED THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 10 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT PRAYING TO SECURE THE PRESENCE OF THE ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2 BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT AND TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT FOR DISOBEYING THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT OF LX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGLURU CITY (CCH- 61) IN O.S.NO.2468 OF 2017 DATED 01.09.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
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 judgment and decree dated 01.09.2017 passed by the LX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in O.S. No.2468 of 2017, has been violated by the defendants/accused.
2. The plea of the complainant is that she obtained a decree against the accused herein restraining them from causing interference in the possession of the plaintiff’s suit schedule property and that they are causing disturbance for construction. The statement of objection has been filed by the accused. They denied the case of the complainant. They have stated that they have never interfered with the possession of the plaintiff’s property and the corporation has already initiated proceedings for demolition and various other acts committed by the complainant.
3. We have heard learned counsels. Both the accused are present. What is sought to be questioned and what is sought to be pleaded in this petition is, disobedience of the impugned judgment and decree. The same is contested by the defendants/accused by producing various materials. Be that as it may, we do not find it appropriate to initiate contempt proceedings against the accused.
4. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the complainant is always at liberty to proceed further in the manner known to law to protect her legal rights in terms of the impugned judgment and decree. Hence, the proceedings are dropped.
SD/- SD/-
JUDGE JUDGE SA