K YADAMMA Vs. K BALAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The office raised the objection regarding maintainability of the Contempt Case filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act 70 of 1971 (in short the Act). According to the petitioner this Court by order dated 22-9-87 directed the suit O.S. No. 4306 of 1985 on the file of the IV Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad to be transferred to the court of the VI Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for a joint trial along with O.S. No. 3090 of 1985 on the file of the VI Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The respondents suppressing the factum of this transfer order, have compromised the dispute in O.S. No. 3090 of 1985 in the proceedings of the Lok Adalat. That was a deliberate disobedience of the order of this court. Accordingly they are liable for punishment under Section 12 of the Act.

(2.) If the facts alleged are found to be true, then it constitutes criminal contempt within the meaning of Section 2(c) of Act and therefore it is condition precedent that the consent of the Advocate General has to be obtained under Section 15 of the Act before instituting the proceedings and the matter has to be dealt with by a Division Bench but not by a single Judge.

(3.) Sri Syed Shareef Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that when this court has directed by an order to transfer the suit O.S. No. 4306 of 1985 on the file of IV Assistant Judge, C.C. Court Hyderabad to a Court of the VI Asst. Judge, for a joint trial along with O.S. No. 3090 of 1985 and when the matter has been compromised getting the suit dismissed by the Lok Adalat, it amounts to wilful disobedience of the order of this court coming within the meaning of Sec. 2(b) of the Act. 1 find difficult to accept this contention. As regards transfer is concerned, already the suit was transferred to VI Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, but before making a joint trial, the respondents compromised the matter in the Lok Adalat proceedings and the matter was settled. The question then is the respondents had made false representation before the Lok Adalat to have the matter compromised without making a joint trial along with the suit O.S. No. 4306 of 1985.