The High Court dismissed a contempt petition alleging violation of an injunction order. It held that since an alternative remedy under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC existed and the property was already sold before the order, no case for contempt was made out.
No relief granted; Contempt Petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
65.cp-437.10.sxw
ppn 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.437 OF 2010
Shri Vijay Balwant Agnihotri .. Petitioner
v/s.
Smt. Monika Milind Choudhary
.. Respondent
Mr. G.R. Agrawal for the Petitioner. Mr. Kuldip Pawar i/by Mr. S.M. Gorwadkar for Respondent.
CORAM : K.K. TATED, J.
DATED : 29TH OCTOBER, 2012
P. C. :
. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
Special Civil Suit No. 227 of 2010 passed by the 3rd Joint Civil
Judge, Senior Division, Nashik by carrying out construction activities. Trial Court by order dated 3rd May, 2010 directed Respondents/original Defendants not to construct over the suit property or change the nature of the suit property. In the present
ppn 2 65.cp-437.10.sxw
Petition, Respondent Monika Milind Choudhary filed affidavit-inreply dated 3rd April, 2012. In paragraph 4, the deponent stated that she sold the suit property by registered agreement of sale on 19th March, 2009 i.e. before passing the injunction order dated 3rd May, 2010. Therefore, there is no question of violating any injunction order and, therefore, the present Contempt Petition is not maintainable against her.
ppn 3 65.cp-437.10.sxw
deliberate acts which constitute a defiance or breach of a judgment or order of the Court. The existence of an alternative remedy to seek redressal would be relevant in cases such as the present one. In such a case, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that there is a clear deliberate or wilful breach of the order passed by the Court an attempt to evade compliance by resorting to subterfuge, the Court would be inclined to relegate the party to pursue its alternate remedy. This view is supported by judgments of the Supreme Court and of this Court where, the existence of an alternative remedy has been held to be a sound reason enough not to entertain contempt proceedings. In a similar line of cases the Supreme Court has held that the power to punish for contempt cannot be used as a substitute for the execution of a decree or order of the Court. A brief reference to these decisions may be in order. In Kapildeo Prasad Sah Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 1997 (7) Supreme Court Cases 569 the position was summed up in the following words in a Judgment delivered by Mr. Justice D.P. Wadhwa :
“For holding the Respondents to have committed contempt, civil contempt at that, it has to be shown that there has been wilful disobedience of the Judgment or order of the Court. Power to punish
ppn 4 65.cp-437.10.sxw
for contempt is to be resorted to when there is clear violation of the Court’s order. Since notice of contempt and punishment for contempt is of far reaching consequence, these powers should be invoked only when a clear case of wilful disobedience of the Court’s order has been made out. Initiation of contempt proceedings is not a substitute for execution proceedings though at times that purpose may also be achieved. Wilful would exclude casual, accidental, bona fide or unintentional acts or genuine inability to comply with the terms of the order. A Petitioner who complains breach of the Court’s order must allege deliberate or contumacious disobedience of the Court’s Order.”
“ The weapon of contempt is not to be used in abundance or misused. Normally, it cannot be used for execution of the decree or implementation
ppn 5 65.cp-437.10.sxw
of an order for which alternative remedy in law is provided for. Discretion given to the Court is to be exercised for maintenance of the Court’s dignity and majesty of law. Further, an aggrieved party has no right to insist that the Court should exercise such jurisdiction as contempt is between a contemner and the Court.”
(K.K. TATED, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should exercise its power to punish for contempt when an alternative remedy like execution proceedings is available under the Code of Civil Procedure.
Whether the respondent's sale of the property before the injunction order constituted wilful disobedience warranting contempt proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kapildeo Prasad Sah Vs. State of BiharReferred¶21
Kapildeo Prasad Sah Vs. State of Bihar, 1997 (7) Supreme Court Cases 569
R.N. Dev Vs. Bhagyabati PramanikReferred¶25
R.N. Dev Vs. Bhagyabati Pramanik, 2000 (4) Supreme Court Cases 400
Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. High Court of DelhiReferred¶29
Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. High Court of Delhi, (2012) 4 Supreme Court Cases 307
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shri Vijay Balwant Agnihotri
Smt. Monika Milind Choudhary
K.K. Tated
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
