The proceedings of contempt are quasi criminal in nature and unless a party alleging contempt proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the opposite party has deliberately violated the order, he cannot be punished in exercise of the contempt jurisdiction. A perusal of the order of the lower Court shows that it has relied upon certain admissions of the petitioner in coming to the conclusion that he failed to prove the allegation that the respondents have demolished the suit wall. While exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of CPC, this Court would not substitute its opinion even if two views are possible on the evidence on record.


THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

Civil Revision Petition No.764 of 2013

Date: 05.03.2013

 

Between:

M.Thirupalaiah Chetty
..... Petitioner
AND

 

D.K.Srinivasa Rao (died per L.R.),

and four others

 

.....Respondents

 

Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri C.Hanumantha Rayudu


Counsel for Respondent Nos.4 & 5: Sri Kothapalli Ram Mohan Choudary


The Court made the following:







ORDER:

         
          This civil revision petition arises out of order, dated 11-09-2007, in E.P.No.562 of 2003 in O.S.No.243 of 1991, on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anantapur.
          For disposal of this case, it is not necessary to refer to the facts in detail.  It will suffice to note that the petitioner obtained a decree for declaration of title and permanent injunction in O.S.No.243 of 1991 on 17-02-1998.  In pursuance of the decree, the petitioner has got a wall constructed by way of execution of mandatory injunction.  The appeal filed by the respondents against the said judgment and decree was dismissed by the learned IV Additional District Judge (FTC), Anantapur, on 13-09-2002. 
          The petitioner pleaded that subsequent to the dismissal of the appeal, the respondents have demolished a part of the suit wall.  That he has therefore filed E.P.No.562 of 2003 for a direction to reconstruct the wall and punish the respondents by their imprisonment and attachment of their properties for violation of the decree.  E.A.No.1185 of 2004 filed by the petitioner for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features was dismissed on 12-04-2006, giving liberty to him to file a fresh application at the stage of enquiry.  However, the fresh application was also dismissed later.  Eventually, the lower Court has dismissed E.P.No.562 of 2003 on 11-09-2007. 
          At the hearing, Sri C.Hanumantha Rayudu, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the reasons assigned by the lower Court for dismissing the E.P., are not sustainable.  He has further submitted that even in the judgment of the appellate Court in A.S.No.54 of 1998, a specific finding has been rendered that the respondents have demolished the suit wall to some extent from point ‘D’ and that finding itself reflects their conduct that they are indulging in demolition of the wall time and again.
          The proceedings of contempt are quasi criminal in nature and unless a party alleging contempt proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the opposite party has deliberately violated the order, he cannot be punished in exercise of the contempt jurisdiction. 
          A perusal of the order of the lower Court shows that it has relied upon certain admissions of the petitioner in coming to the conclusion that he failed to prove the allegation that the respondents have demolished the suit wall.  While exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of CPC, this Court would not substitute its opinion even if two views are possible on the evidence on record.  The view taken by the lower Court for dismissing the petitioner’s E.P., being a plausible view, though it may not be the only correct view, still this Court will not over rule the view of the lower Court, inasmuch as the lower Court in appreciation of evidence rendered the finding that the petitioner failed to produce proper evidence, except his ipse dixi.
For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in this civil revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 
__________________________
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

Dt.05-03-2013

Mva/Vgb

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515