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
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.