P. SUMA Vs. KRISHNAMURTHY SWAMY MANAGING TRUSTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This contempt petition is filed under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act praying to initiate contempt proceedings against the accused for violation of the order passed in RFA No.1781/2013 dated 15.3.2017 and punish the accused in accordance with law and grant such other relief as deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are: The complainant is the absolute owner of the site bearing No.980, Brindavan nagar, Nethravathi river road, Corporation Division No.52, Bangalore, measuring east to west on northern side 25 feet, southern side 35 feet, north to south including passage 60 feet and the same was purchased under absolute registered sale deed dated 12.8.2004. The complainant had filed suit in O.S.No.8402/2004 and the same was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the same, he preferred R.F.A.No.1781/2013. When the matter was listed for admission, this Court was pleased to pass an order directing both the parties to maintain status-quo till the next date of hearing vide Order dated 27.11.2013. The said order was subsequently extended on 15.3.2017. The accused knowing fully well the pendency of the appeal and that there is an interim order, still started illegal construction with an intention to deprive the right of the complainant. Hence, on 20.3.2017, the complainant gave the complaint before the Assistant Executive Engineer stating that the accused had started illegal construction without sanction plan or permission from the concerned authorities. Even then the interim order of status quo was violated and work was continued. Hence, another complaint was given to Hanumanthnagar police station on 22.3.2017. It is contended that the illegal and unauthorized construction is in clear violation of the order passed by this Court and the accused has committed an offence of willful disobedience of the order of this Court, which amounts to contempt. The photographs are also produced to evidence the fact of work undertaken by the accused in violation of the interim order.

(3.) In pursuance of this complaint, this Court has issued notice against the accused and the accused appeared through counsel and filed objection statement contending that the complainant illegally entered into the premises of the accused and demolished the side wall of the temple and in view of the said act committed by the complainant, the accused gave complaint before Hanumanthnagara police station. The police have registered the case against the complainant in Reference No.110/2017 on 12.3.2017 and also issued an endorsement on 15.3.2017 by directing the accused to settle this matter before the concerned jurisdictional Court of law. The complainant has moved the case before this Court on 15.3.2017 and this Court was pleased to extend the interim order directing both the parties to maintain status-quo till next date of hearing. It is contended that interim order was not extended when the matter was listed on 5.2.2016 and 1.3.2016 and interim order was continued only on 15.3.2017. In between 2014 to 2017 there was no interim order. The complainant taking advantage of the interim order of status-quo even though the accused had not put up any construction and maintained the status-quo order, has filed this false civil contempt case against the accused to get advantage of the circumstances. It is contended that the accused is running a Temple Trust and also doing the job of priest in the temple. Accused is running the temple by having common interest and by taking advantage of this, complainant has filed original suit seeking easement right on the property of the temple run by the accused and the complainant was not successful in the said suit. In pursuance of the order of this Court to maintain status-quo a false proceeding has been initiated against the accused. The accused has maintained statusquo till today over the schedule property and not violated any order and there was no any willful disobedience on the part of the accused and accordingly, prayed this Court to dismiss the contempt petition.