IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ C.C.C. Nos.1042-44 OF 2019 (CIVIL) BETWEEN:
1 . SRI. M. NANJAPPA S/O MAYANNA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RESIDING AT #54/C, 12TH MAIN 4TH BLOCK, NANDINI LAYOUT BANGALORE - 560 096.
2 . SMT.MANJULA.T W/O RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS NO.44, 10TH MAIN, 4TH BLOCK NANDINI LAYOUT BANGALORE - 560 096.
3 . SRI. MARIGOWDA S/O BOREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS NO.410-B, 5TH CROSS KANTEERAVANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 096.
(BY SRI. J.N. NAVEEN, ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI. MANJEGOWDA ... COMPLAINANTS S/O CHIKKEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO.37, 12TH MAIN 4TH BLOCK, NANDINI LAYOUT BANGALORE - 560 096.
(SRI. S. NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE) ... ACCUSED THESE CCC’S ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED PERSONS FOR WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN W.P. NO.58402/2015 AND W.P. NOS.2271-2279/2016 DATED:25.01.2016 AND PUNISH THE ACCUSED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT.
THESE CCC’S COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ARAVIND KUMAR J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Having heard learned the Advocates appearing for parties on 21.11.2019, we had passed the following order:
“In these petitions complainants have alleged that respondent has violated the interim order of stay granted on 25.01.2016 in W.P.Nos.58402/2015 and 2271-
2279/2016, which was extended from time to time, under which order, respondent No.4 has been restrained from putting up any construction and yet he has put up a compound wall and as such, respondents are liable to be punished for willfully disobeying the order.
Material on record would disclose that a specific assertion has been made by respondent No.4 in Writ Petitions who is respondent No.1 herein contending he had no notice or knowledge of order of stay/injunction having been passed against him vide Paragraph 5 of his counter affidavit dated 07.08.2019. Infact, notice in W.P.Nos.58402/2015 & 2271-2279/2016 issued to 1st respondent herein through Court has been returned with a postal shara “no such number in this address and return to sender”. Subsequently, notice has been served on one Ms.Danushree as reflected in the postal acknowledgement. It is incumbent on complainants to prima facie establish that notice of order of stay had been communicated to 1st respondent herein or in other words 1st respondent had knowledge of the interim order of stay which came to be passed on 25.01.2016 in the aforesaid Writ Petitions, which is alleged to have been violated by 1st respondent.
At this juncture, learned advocate appearing for complainants prays for a week’s time to place on record material to establish this aspect.
Hence, re-list on 25.11.2019”.
2. Learned Advocate appearing for complainants would fairly submit that complainants are not able to lay their hands to any positive material to establish that respondent - accused had notice of interim order of stay granted on 25.01.2016 in W.P.Nos.58402/2015 and 2271-2279/2016.
3. In that view of the matter, complainant cannot be heard to contend that there is wilfull disobedience on the part of respondent-accused in complying with the order passed by this Court on 25.01.2016 whereunder respondent had been restrained from putting-up any construction. However, reserving liberty to the complainants to work out their rights in the pending writ petitions, contempt proceedings are dropped.
SD/- JUDGE SD/- JUDGE *sp