CAUVERY ACHAYYA Vs. SYED MUKTHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these petitions filed under S. 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the complainants have prayed for an order punishing the first respondent for willfully disobeying the order dated 25th March 1998 made in R. F. A. No. 830/1997 by this Court and also for violating the undertaking given by means of an affidavit undertaking to vacate the premises bearing present No. 39, Old No. 323/32, 9th Cross, Wilson Garden Extension, Corporation Division No. 36, Bangalore-27 (hereinafter referred to as the "schedule premises" ).

(2.) THE facts in brief, which may be relevant for the disposal of this petition, may be stated as hereunder :

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the complainants, in support of the prayer of the complainants that the respondent is liable to be punished for committing contempt of Court, made three submissions. Firstly, he submitted that since the respondent has violated the undertaking dated 24th August 1998 given by means of an affidavit before the Court of Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City (Exhibit C-2), undertaking to voluntarily hand over vacant possession of the schedule premises and for the said purpose, having prayed for six months time and on the basis of the said undertaking given, secured three months' time from the Court, is liable to be punished under S. 12 of the Act as he has violated the undertaking given by him. According to the learned counsel, the violation of the undertaking given by the respondent to the Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, amounts to civil contempt within the meaning of S. 2 (b) of the Act. It is his submission that the violation of the judgment and decree made in R. F. A. No. 830/1987 by this Court, also amounts to civil contempt. Elaborating the submission, the learned counsel pointed out that the material on record would clearly show that the respondent in connivance with Rakesh Kumar and Rama Reddy, with a view to frustrate the undertaking given by him, has inducted the said Rakesh Kumar and Rema Reddy to the schedule premises and instigated them to come forward with a false plea that late K. K. Achayya had agreed to sell the schedule premises in their favour by means of agreement to sell dated 22nd April 1988 executed by the said K. K. Achayya. Secondly, he submitted that the respondent also, on the basis of the materials on record, should be held as having committed criminal contempt within the meaning of S. 2 (c) of the Act. It is his submission that the violation of the direction given by this Court made in R. F. A. No. 830/87 by mens of its order dated 25th March 1998 directing the respondent to hand over possession of the schedule premises in terms of the decree made by this Court in the said appeal, putting the said Rakesh Kumar and Rama Reddy, clearly amounts to the commission of criminal contempt by the respondent. He also pointed out that the statement made by the respondent in the suit filed by him for specific performance wherein he had admitted that he was put in possession of the schedule premises towards part performance of the specific performance of the agreement entered into by him with K. K. Achayya, and the stand taken by him in the course of the evidence in the said suit and till the disposal of the special leave petition clearly establishes that it was the case of the respondent throughout that he was put in possession of the schedule premises and under these circumstances, the subsequent change of stand by him that the said Rakesh Kumar and Rama Reddy were in possession of the first floor and garage portion of the schedule premises in terms of the agreement to sell executed by late K. K. Achayya and they also came into possession of the ground floor of the schedule premises as the complainants handed over possession of the same to them, is totally false and baseless; and the said case is put forward by the respondent only to defeat and obstruct the judgment passed by this Court in R. F. A. No. 830/87 directing the respondent to put the complainants in possession of the schedule premises and the said act of the respondent amounts to criminal contempt within the meaning of Section 2 (c) of the Act. He further submitted that the unconditional apology filed before this Court and going back on that, clearly amounts to contemptuous act amounting to criminal contempt. Thirdly, he submitted that since the material on record clearly establishes that the respondent has committed both civil and criminal contempt, this Court should make an order directing the Executing Court to put the complainants in possession of the schedule premises overruling all the obstructions that may be raised by the respondent or any other person.