SABIRABI Vs. B OBULA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both sides on maintainability of the contempt application. A few facts which are necessary to answer the contentions raised are as follows :

(2.) Aggrieved by the common order passed in I.A. Nos. 158 of 1991 and 78 of 1994 in O.S. No. 44 of 1991 by learned Subordinate Judge, Penukonda, the complainant herein filed CMA No. 1053 of 1994 and this Court passed the order against respondents 1 and 2 on 29-9-1994 setting aside the impugned order subject to the condition that no pucca construction shall be raised on the suit schedule land till the disposal of the applications by the lower Court. On 1-3-1996, other respondents namely respondents 3 to 6, who are relatives of respondents 1 and 2, unmindful of the presence of the order of this Court, started construction of the building. When the complainant lodged before the concerned police, no action was taken. Hence, the complainant filed this contempt case before this Court on 21-3-1996 under Ss. 10 and 12 of Contempt of Courts Act. The respondents 1 and 2 appeared before this Court through their Advocate and filed counter-affidavit in which they denied the act of contempt and also proceeding with the construction. However, respondents 3 to 6 proceeded with the construction. Hence, the complainant was compelled to bring them on record in C.A. No. 852 of 1996 on which notice was ordered and also directed the parties to maintain status quo on 18-9-1996. Though notice was ordered, the same could not be served on respondents 3 to 6. The allegation is that the impleading respondents were fully aware of the said notice and also the status quo order passed by this Court especially when they are living together with respondents 1 and 2. Ultimately, notices were served on 19-9-1997, R-4 filed counter on 9-3-1998 and R-3 and R-5 filed counter on 16-3-1998. The stand taken by them is one of total denial of the act of contempt. The implead petition is ordered.

(3.) To support the contention that contempt case has to be initiated within one year from the date of the order, mere ordering of notice does not amount to initiation of contempt proceedings, Mr. M. V. Ramana Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for respondents-contemners, placed reliance on the following decisions. The Advocate General of A.P. v. A. V. Koteswara Rao (1984) 1 ALT 69 : (1984 Cri LJ 1171) S. J. G.M. High School, Bhimavaram v. Director of School Education, Hyderabad (1995) 3 ALT 502 : 1996 Cri LJ 699, Advocate General v. Dr. A. Gopal, (1996) 2 Andh LD 303 : (1996 Cri LJ 3724) and Om Prakash Jaiswal v. D. K. Mittal, AIR 2000 SC 1136 : (2000 Cri LJ 1700). According to him, the contempt application filed by the complainant is barred by time as the order was made on 29-9-1994 whereas the contempt petition was filed on 29-9-1996. The second contention is that the act of contempt complained of is the order of injunction granted by this Court, and if there is any disobedience to the said order, the proper remedy is under Order 39 Rule 2-A of Civil Procedure Code. He submitted that the inherent powers of this Court under Article 215 of Constitution of India cannot be invoked. On the other hand, whether there is contempt or not, has to be decided only after leading evidence in the proper Forum under Order 39 Rule 2-A of Civil Procedure Code. To support this contention. Sri M. V. Ramana Reddy placed reliance on Rule 24 of the Contempt of Courts Rules. Apart from the stand of denial. Mr. M. V. Ramana Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents-contemnors, took a plea that the contempt petition is not maintainable for the reason that the same is barred by limitation. Further, even if it is assumed that contempt petition is maintainable, still this Court cannot entertain the same as the complainant has got an alternative remedy under Order 39, Rule 2-A of Civil Procedure Code. Thus contending, he sought the contempt petition be dismissed.