K JAGDISH PONRAJ Vs. A MUNIRAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this contempt petition filed under section 10 read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short, the Act), the complainants have sought to initiate contempt proceedings against the accused and to punish them for disobedience of an order of temporary injunction made by the subordinate Court.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case necessary for the disposal of this petition are as follows : the complainants are the plaintiffs in the suit for specific performance in O. S. No. 1504/2006 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge (Senior division), Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, filed against defendants/ accused 1 to 3 herein. In the suit which is still pending, the Trial Court by its order dated 27. 6. 2006, has ordered the issue of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit 'c' schedule property till the next date of hearing. The Trial Court had directed to issue the order of temporary injunction to the defendants, on compliance of the stipulation under Order 39, Rule 3 (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'code' ). Complainants claim that, they have complied with the condition, namely, compliance of the requirement under Order 39, Rule 3 (a) (i) to (iii) of the Code, by sending copies detailed therein, to the defendants by registered post and filing a compliance affidavit in terms of order 39, Rule 3 (b) on 28. 6. 2006. The complainants contend that, the defendants/accused 1 to 3 became aware of the said temporary injunction order on 29. 6. 2006; that the defendants refused to receive the suit summons and the notices, in view of which, the Court Amin affixed the same on the residential premises of the defendants, who did not appear in the Trial court on 5. 8. 2006, the date fixed for their appearance and they were placed ex-parte and the suit was posted for evidence of the plaintiffs by 17. 10. 2006. The defendants got the suit advanced from 17. 10. 2006 to 19. 8. 2006, filed an application to set aside the order placing them ex-parte and to permit them to contest the suit. The said application having been allowed, the defendants have filed their written statement on 20. 1. 2007, wherein it was stated that, they have already sold and conveyed the property in dispute in favour of one Ramakrishnappa i. e. , accused No. 4 herein. The plaintiff contend that, they made enquiries and learnt that the defendants have made a fraudulent transfer of the property in dispute under a sale deed dated 21. 7. 2006, in wilful violation of the injunction order passed on 27. 6. 2006 and are guilty of contempt of Court and are liable to be punished under Section 2 read with Section 10 of the Act. Contending that the accused are guilty of violating the said injunction order and alleging that the accused are guilty of interfering with administration of justice and hampering the authority of the Court and are liable to be punished as provided under the act, this contempt petition has been filed with a prayer to punish the accused and to direct accused 1 to 3 to cancel the said sale deed dated 21. 7. 2007 (Annexure-M), in favour of accused No. 4. 2. 1. The accused 1 to 3 have filed their statements of objections, inter alia contending that, the petition is not maintainable; the remedy for the complainants is to invoke the jurisdiction of the Trial Court under Order 39, Rule 2a of Code and not the provisions of the Act, in view of the decision in the provisions of the Act, in view of the decision in the case of Hanamavva vs. B. Alla Baksh and Others, reported in 2002 (2) Kar. L. J. 164. They have stated that, they were not aware of the ex-parte order of temporary injunction ordered by the Trial Court and there is no wilful disobedience on their part and hence, they have not committed any contempt of Court. 2. 2. The fourth accused in his statement of objections has contended that, he has not committed any breach or violation of the order dated 27. 6. 2006 passed by the Trial Court and the proceedings initiated against him is without any just cause or reason; lacks bona fides; that he was not a party to the proceedings in the Trial Court; that no order was communicated to him; that he is a bona fide purchaser in possession of the land and hence the petition is not maintainable.

(3.) WE have heard Sri M. G. Kumar, learned Counsel for the complainants, Sri M. H. Sawkar, learned Counsel for accused Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri H. T. Jagannatha, learned Counsel for the accused No. 4.