BHARATKUMAR MOHANLAL KHANPARA Vs. MAYURBHAI PRABHUDAS GONDALIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner Bharatkumar Mohanlal Khanpara / Original Opponent has filed this Petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, for the following prayers as under:

(2.) The facts in nutshell are that the present Respondent No.1 - Mayurbhai Prabhudas Gondalia has preferred Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 25 of 2017, under the provisions of the Contempt of Court's Act, before the Learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gondal for initiating contempt proceedings against the present Petitioner. The said Misc. Civil Application was transferred at Jetpur and renumbered as Misc. Civil Application No. 19 of 2018.

(3.) Learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that the learned Trial Court has committed serious error in passing the impugned order. The learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the application for initiating proceedings under the Contempt of Court's Act is not maintainable. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner has submitted that the learned Trial Court has committed serious illegality of law and facts in not appreciating that the application moved by the Respondent No.1 herein Mayurbhai Prabhudas Gondalia is for initiating the contempt proceedings. It is submitted that the said provisions are applicable in case if any order is passed by the High Court or the Hon'ble Apex Court. However in the present case, no such order or direction is issued either by the High Court or by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Not only this, there is no order or direction issued by the Civil Court also. Therefore, the dispute in the Misc. Civil Application lies in a very narrow compass i.e. whether any direction is issued by any court which is disobeyed. Admittedly no such direction is issued against the present petitioner. Therefore, there was no question of disobeying the directions. But unfortunately the learned Trial Court has tried to enlarge the scope of Misc. Civil application and dismissed the Application and imposing heavy cost upon the present Petitioner for taking defence. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court has committed serious error of law in not considering that the Respondent No.2 herein Prabhudasbhai Mohanbhai Gondalia himself is not an agriculturist, and therefore, he could not transfer the land, which fact was not brought to the notice of the court while recording the compromise purshis. It is therefore submitted that the compromise was hit by Section 54 of Saurashtra Gharkhed and Tenancy Act. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner has submitted that the contempt application on the face of it is not at all maintainable in the eye of law. It is further contended that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside only on the ground that the decision of the Petitioner is upheld by the superior authorities.