Contempt of court - sec.2 (b) and rule 7 of contempt of courts Act & Rules - Willful disobedience of orders must be pleaded and petition should be as per rule 7 of Contempt rules - absence of pleading and further more the order is for not to sale where as the contempt petition is on allegation of trespass - Trial court failed to notice the same and order for contempt of court - Their Lordships of High court set aside the orders of lower court and allowed the appeal with costs = S.V. Bhaksar Reddy,Kurnool.... Appellant Smt.C.Devaki,W/o. C. Bhaskar,Kurnool and others.... Respondents=2014 (Feb.Part ) judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=10936

Contempt of court - sec.2 (b) and rule 7 of contempt of  courts Act &  Rules - Willful disobedience of orders  must be pleaded and petition should be as per rule 7 of Contempt rules - absence of pleading and further more the order is for not to sale where as the contempt petition is on allegation of trespass - Trial court failed to notice the same and order for contempt of court - Their Lordships of High court set aside the orders of lower court and allowed the appeal with costs =
Order of Trial court
"In view of the facts and circumstances, both the parties are directed
not to create any third party interests and shall not execute any documents with
regard to the suit schedule land."
Allegations in contempt application
that "after obtaining the said orders, I made representations to the respondent
Nos. 1 to 3 and asked to implement the orders of this Hon'ble Court.  But till
date not doing the same.  In the meantime, the 4th respondent and his men had
illegally trespassed into my property and also trying to stop me not to enter
into my lands."
What is civil contempt – How the application be presented
"Civil Contempt" means willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction,
order, writ or other process of a court or willful breach of an undertaking
given to a Court.

        In our view, unless there has been a prima facie statement and averment
with the words "willful disobedience" there cannot be any prima facie case of
contempt.  Moreover, the Contempt of Courts (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Rules,1980 (for short 'the Rules')  have also stated how a statement has to be
made with regard to the contempt proceedings by a petitioner. Rule 7 of the
Rules mandates as follows:
 "7. (1)  Every petition under Rule 5(b) and (c) shall contain:
(a) the name, description and place of residence of the petitioner or
petitioners and of the person charged:
(b)  the nature and details of the contempt alleged, and such material facts,
including the date or dates of commission of the alleged contempt, as may be
necessary for the proper determination of the case;
(c)  the details of the petition previously made by the petitioner on the same
facts, if any, and the result thereof.
(2) Where the petitioner relies upon a document or documents in his possession
or power and refers to them in the petition in support thereof, he shall file
such document or documents or true copies thereof duly authenticated along with the petition.
(3) No Court-fee shall be payable on the petition or on any documents filed in
the contempt proceedings."


        It is clear from the said affidavit that there are no such particulars as
required under the aforesaid Rules.  Unless the statements and averments are
made in complete compliance of Section 2(b) read with Rule 7 as above, there
cannot be any prima facie disclosure of commission of contempt.
Order is for one thing – contempt petition  is for another thing
More over, the
allegations are made not in relation to the execution or non-execution of a
document, on creation of a third party interest or execution of a document on
the allegations made with regard to possession. The Hon'ble First Court while
passing the order in respect of which contempt application has been filed, as we
have already noted, has not ordered regarding possession.  Therefore, the
allegations are absolutely unrelated to the order passed earlier. 
conclusion
Therefore, the order is passed without any jurisdiction.  The contempt
application was also filed without having any foundation under the law.
Accordingly, we set aside the order and dismiss the contempt case and the
contempt case shall not be proceeded with. And allowed the appeal with  costs.

2014 (Feb.Part ) judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=10936

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR               

Contempt Appeal No.2 of 2014 

28-02-2014

S.V. Bhaksar Reddy,Kurnool.... Appellant

Smt.C.Devaki,W/o. C. Bhaskar,Kurnool and others.... Respondents 

For the appellant: Sri B.Narasimha Sarma, Advocate.

For the Respondents 1 and 2 : Jayasree Wazeer 

<Gist:

>Head Note:

?CITATIONS: 

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA            
 AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR        

Contempt Appeal No.2 of 2014 

DATED:28.2.2014 


Judgment: (per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)


        This appeal is admitted and notice has been served upon the learned
counsel for the respondents, who appears to contest this matter.  The scope of
the appeal is very very limited, for which, no formal hearing of the appeal on a
future date is required.
  Learned counsel for the appellant drawing our attention to the allegations
made in the affidavit filed in support of the contempt application, namely,
paragraph-4 of the affidavit submits that the allegations contained therein have
no correlation with the order passed by the Hon'ble trial Judge. He submits
drawing our attention to the order of the Hon'ble trial Judge that there has
been no order restraining his client from entering into the land.  The order
relates to something else. He also submits drawing our attention to Section 2(b)
of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act') that there is no prima
facie allegation of commission of contempt going by the definition as above.
According to him, the impugned order is a separate one and has got nothing to do
with the first order in relation to which, the contempt application is said to
have been made.
 Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to give answer to the
definition pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant.  She goes on
saying some other subject, for which, her clients have grievance.  She says that
it will appear from the records that the appellant is not supposed to enter into
or use the land for agricultural activities and as a result whereof, her clients
have suffered loss and damages. In view of the aforesaid submission of the
learned counsel, we examine the first order, which was passed by the Hon'ble
trial Judge and it appears to us on a reading thereof, that Hon'ble trial Judge
has not passed any order in relation to the possession of any property, but has
passed an order directing the parties not to create third party interest and not
to execute any document with regard to the suit schedule land.  We, therefore,
set out the relevant portion of the order.
       
       "In view of the facts and circumstances, both the parties are directed
not to create any third party interests and shall not execute any documents with
regard to the suit schedule land."

        On a reading of the same, we examined the statements and averments made in  
the affidavit of the contempt case.  Apart from the allegations made in
paragraph-4 of the affidavit filed in support of the contempt case, there is no
other allegation.  In paragraph-4, the 1st respondent-petitioner has alleged
that "after obtaining the said orders, I made representations to the respondent
Nos. 1 to 3 and asked to implement the orders of this Hon'ble Court.  But till
date not doing the same.  In the meantime, the 4th respondent and his men had
illegally trespassed into my property and also trying to stop me not to enter
into my lands."
        Firstly, we observe while agreeing with the argument of
Mr.B.Narasimha Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant that there has been no
disclosure of prima facie commission of contempt as required under Section 2(b)
of the Act.  We reproduce the said provision herein below:
 "Civil Contempt" means willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction,
order, writ or other process of a court or willful breach of an undertaking
given to a Court.

        In our view, unless there has been a prima facie statement and averment
with the words "willful disobedience" there cannot be any prima facie case of
contempt.  Moreover, the Contempt of Courts (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Rules,1980 (for short 'the Rules')  have also stated how a statement has to be
made with regard to the contempt proceedings by a petitioner. Rule 7 of the
Rules mandates as follows:
 "7. (1)  Every petition under Rule 5(b) and (c) shall contain:
(a) the name, description and place of residence of the petitioner or
petitioners and of the person charged:
(b)  the nature and details of the contempt alleged, and such material facts,
including the date or dates of commission of the alleged contempt, as may be
necessary for the proper determination of the case;
(c)  the details of the petition previously made by the petitioner on the same
facts, if any, and the result thereof.
(2) Where the petitioner relies upon a document or documents in his possession
or power and refers to them in the petition in support thereof, he shall file
such document or documents or true copies thereof duly authenticated along with the petition.
(3) No Court-fee shall be payable on the petition or on any documents filed in
the contempt proceedings."


        It is clear from the said affidavit that there are no such particulars as
required under the aforesaid Rules.  Unless the statements and averments are
made in complete compliance of Section 2(b) read with Rule 7 as above, there
cannot be any prima facie disclosure of commission of contempt. More over, the
allegations are made not in relation to the execution or non-execution of a
document, on creation of a third party interest or execution of a document on
the allegations made with regard to possession. The Hon'ble First Court while
passing the order in respect of which contempt application has been filed, as we
have already noted, has not ordered regarding possession.  Therefore, the
allegations are absolutely unrelated to the order passed earlier.  The Hon'ble
trial Judge, in our considered view, with great respect, has not checked up the
aforesaid fatal lacuna and without looking into the same, His Lordship has been
pleased to pass an order at the interlocutory stage, which again is a separate,
different order. This was done because proper assistance was not rendered to His
Lordship, otherwise, His Lordship would not have passed such an order.  Be that
as it may, a mistake is a mistake.   Whether mindful or unmindful, a mistake
cannot be allowed to remain.  We therefore, hold that the learned trial Judge
ought not to have entertained the contempt application.  Unless those
allegations are maintained, the Court cannot assume the jurisdiction. Therefore,
the First Court lacks jurisdiction as jurisdictional fact was not mentioned.
Therefore, the order is passed without any jurisdiction.  The contempt
application was also filed without having any foundation under the law.
Accordingly, we set aside the order and dismiss the contempt case and the
contempt case shall not be proceeded with.
Learned counsel for the respondents argued unnecessarily, which is unrelated to
the issue, and thereby wasted the Court's time.  We, therefore, award costs of
Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) to be paid by the respondents and because   of filing of patently frivolous contempt application, the aforesaid costs is
also necessary.  Such costs shall be paid within 15 days from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.  Let this order be produced before the learned
trial Judge on the adjourned date.  It appears, in terms of the order of the
Hon'ble trial Judge, since amount has been deposited before the Court below, the
said amount shall be refunded forthwith by the Court below.
        The contempt appeal is accordingly allowed with costs as aforestated.
_________________  
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ  
_________________  
SANJAY KUMAR, J        

28.2.2014

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.

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

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.