LAKSHMI JANARDHAN Vs. N S VINUTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This motion by the complainant against the accused is for taking action for criminal contempt of the proceedings of this Court and also a subordinate Court.

(2.) Material allegations made in the motion are that, accused along with his wife instituted against the 2nd complainant, O.S. 2377/1993 on the file of the City Civil Court, Bangalore which suit was dismissed in respect of a portion of the suit property by a decree dated 11.12.2003. Accused along with his wife filed RFA 146/2004, which was dismissed as not pressed, by an order dated 20.04.2006. During the pendency of said appeal, accused filed O.S. 4196/2005 on 4.6.2005 on the file of the City Civil Court, Bangalore, in respect of the same suit property, as in O.S. 2377/93, against the 1st complainant. In the said suit, an I.A. under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was filed and an exparte order of temporary injunction was obtained on 08.06.05, by concealing the fact about the judgment and decree dated 11.12.2003 passed in O.S. 2377/93 and the pendency of RFA 146/2004 and also by misleading the Court by stating in para 8 of the plaint that "there is no pendency of any legal proceedings and litigation either in past and in present concerning any part of the subject matter of this suit in any Court with the knowledge of the plaintiff". The filing of O.S.4196/2005 was not brought to the notice of this Court during the pendency of RFA 146/2004. Only after disposal of RFA 146/2004 by an order dated 20.04.2006, the fact of grant of said exparte temporary injunction order came to the knowledge of the complainant on 16.05.2006.

(3.) Notice of the motion was ordered to the accused who entered appearance through counsel. Accused filed objection statement contending that, during the pendency of RFA 146/2004, tenant had handed over key of the premises to 2nd complainant, who was a party in the RFA, had attempted to meddle with the portion of the property and hence, he filed a complaint on 19.5.2005. There was a status quo order passed in RFA 146/2004 on 6.6.2005. 1st complainant was not a party in the RFA and she tried to interfere with the possession and as such, he filed O.S. 4196/2005, in which, an order of temporary injunction was passed on 8.6.2005. Since summons was not served on complainant No. 1, paper publication was taken. It was also stated that, he had filed W.P. 7791/2006 against Bangalore Mahanagara Palike to consider a complaint filed before Assistant Revenue Officer and the said petition was dismissed with liberty to pursue the remedy either before the authority or in the Civil Court. 2nd complainant is a party and there is an interim order of status quo granted in RFA and accused had specifically instructed his advocate to file a suit against complainant No. 1, stating the pendency of appeal in this Court and his Advocate might have stated in the pleading in para 8 of the plaint, which is normally written by an Advocate and that he had no knowledge of the same.