INDIRADEVI Vs. PRASANNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner in this contempt application was the Petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 21824/2008. The said writ petition was one filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging Annexure A-1 order of the Sub Court, Ernakulam, disposing of I.A. No. 2192/2008 in O.S. No. 1002/2007 and I.A. No. 2190/2008 in O.S. No. 1003/2007. The judgment in the above writ petition is Annexure A-5. As per Annexure A-5, certain directions issued by the Sub Court in Annexure A-1 were modified and certain additional directions were also issued by this Court. The matter related to the release of a film. Alleging that in violation of the directions issued by this Court, the film has been released by the Respondents, this contempt application has been filed. First Respondent is the Respondent in the Writ Petition and second Respondent is the Advocate Commissioner.

(2.) The learned Single Judge referred the matter under Rule 6 of the Contempt of Courts (High Court of Kerala) Rules for taking further proceedings in the matter, to the Division Bench. When the matter came up before us, we expressed a doubt whether the remedy of the Petitioner is to move the Sub Court for appropriate action against the Respondents or to pursue this contempt application. On this point, we heard Mr. P. Ravindran, learned senior counsel, who appeared for the Petitioner. He took us through the various provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, including Sections 10 and 15. Reference was made to Rule 6 of the Contempt of Courts (High Court of Kerala) Rules also. The learned senior counsel submitted that if the direction of a subordinate Court is disobeyed by a party, contempt application may lie under Section 10. He also relied on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Dinesh v. Pioneer Shopping Complex (P) Ltd.,2002 1 KerLT 35 and submitted that the contempt application is maintainable.

(3.) Annexure A-1 is the order of the Sub Court. The said order has been modified by this Court by Annexure A-5 judgment. Now, the two suits in which the above common interim order is passed, are pending before the Sub Court. If the interim order issued by the Sub Court, as modified by this Court, is violated, the remedy of the Petitioner is to move that Court under Order XXXIX, Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure. Going by the decision cited by the learned senior counsel in Dinesh v. Pioneer Shopping Complex (P) Ltd. , such an application under Order XXXIX, Rule 2A can be filed before this Court also. But, there is an observation in para 5 of that judgment that contempt jurisdiction can be invoked not only for violation of the orders of this Court, but also for violation of the orders of any Court subordinate to it. But, we notice that the said point is not one which arose for decision in that case. In other words, it is only obiter dicta.