Dismissed

Sharada W/O Raghavendra Burali v. Shreeman Niranjan Shivalingeshwar

Karnataka HC13 Nov 2018CCC/100488/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka dismissed two contempt petitions. The court held that the accused's failure to appear before the lower trial court did not amount to willful disobedience of its order, especially in the absence of a specific finding that the suit was filed in abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petitions were dismissed; associated Interlocutory Application No.1 of 2018 was also dismissed.

Sharada W/O Raghavendra Burali Vs Shreeman Niranjan… — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2018)

¶1

CCC Nos.100488-489/2018

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BELLUNKE

¶9

C.C.C. Nos.100488-489 OF 2018 [CIVIL]

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SHARADA W/O RAGHAVENDRA BURALI AGE:76 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD R/O:BURALI LAYOUT, NEAR OLD BUS STAND

¶12

BAGALKOT

¶13

VIJAYANAND S/O RAGHAVENDRA BURALI AGE:47 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS, R/O:BURALI LAYOUT, NEAR OLD BUS STAND BAGALKOT

¶14

... COMPLAINANTS

¶15

(By Sri S S PATIL & SANJAY B.CHANAL ADVS.)

¶16

AND:

¶17

SHREEMAN NIRANJAN SHIVALINGESHWAR KUMARENDRA MAHASWAMI MAHA SIDDA SANSTHANA PEETA AGE:73 YEARS, OCC:PREACHING, SAVALAGI,R/O:GOKAKA, DIST:BELAGAVI

¶18

... ACCUSED

¶19

CCC Nos.100488-489/2018

¶20

¶21

THESE CCCs ARE FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 & 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT,1971, R/W. ARTICLE 215 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED REGARDING THE DISOBEDIENCE OF ORDER DATED:14.12.2017 IN O.S. NO.163/2015 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, BAGALKOT VIDE ANNEXURE-"C",IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶22

THESE CCCs COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

Learned counsel for the complainants submitted that service of notice on the

¶25

respondent/accused is awaited.

¶26

In order to ascertain as to what actual was the disobedience by respondent/accused, we have heard learned counsel for the complainants.

¶27

He has submitted that the complainants are defendant Nos.5 and 6 in O.S. No.163 of 2015 which is pending before the Court of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Bagalkot. That the said suit is filed by the respondent/accused through his power of attorney holder namely, Chinnappa

¶28

3 CCC Nos.100488-489/2018

¶29

Satteppa Managutti. That the accused is in no way connected with the suit schedule property and has no right, title or interest over it. Nevertheless he has filed the said suit. In the said suit, complainants’ advocate filed a memo stating that the general power of attorney holder of the plaintiff died on 24.07.2017. On 14.11.2017, the trial court directed advocate for the respondent/accused herein to file an amended plaint and to file the vakalatnama of the plaintiff as his power of attorney holder had died on 15.11.2017, advocate of the respondent/accused filed amended plaint along with vakalatnama before the trial court. It appears that the trial court verified the signature of the accused on the vakalatnama with that of the signature on the general power of attorney and has suspected that the signature on the said documents are distinct and different. In order to seek clarification in that regard, the respondent/accused was directed to be

¶30

CCC Nos.100488-489/2018

¶31

¶32

present before the trial court. But, on two occasions he was not present. Thereafter, the trial court passed a detailed order on 14.12.2017 directing the respondent/accused to be present before the trial court for verification of the signature and also directing the Notary Public to produce the Notary Register. But, a memo was filed stating that the signature on the general power of attorney as well as vakalatnama are same and permission was sought to continue with the suit.

¶33

According to complainant’s counsel, the memo has raised serious suspicion which is coupled with the fact that the respondent / accused has failed to appear before the trial court. In the circumstances, complainants issued a legal notice through their advocate and have preferred these contempt petitions.

¶34

CCC Nos.100488-489/2018

¶35

¶36

Learned counsel for the complainants

¶37

submits that there is a serious issue as to whether the suit was really filed on behalf of the respondent/accused and as to whether the respondent/accused had indeed given instructions to his power of attorney holder to file the suit. He further submits that in the said suit, an interim injunction has been issued against the complainants restraining them from alienating the suit schedule properties. This has caused great injustice to them. In order to ascertain as to whether the suit has been filed on behalf of the respondent/accused, the directions has been issued by the trial court which has not been complied and rather, there has been willful disobedience of the directions by the respondent/accused. Therefore, complainants’ counsel submits that action may be taken against the respondent/accused.

¶38

CCC Nos.100488-489/2018

¶39

¶40

We have perused the material on record including order dated 14.12.2017, in light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the complainants and we find that in order to clear the suspicion in the mind of the trial court, a direction was issued by it to the respondent/accused to be present before it. The purpose was in order to ascertain as to whether the suit could be prosecuted by the respondent / accused who is the plaintiff in the suit, or any other appropriate order ought to be made. Merely because the respondent / accused did not appear and has taken time for appearance, would not imply that there is willful disobedience of the order of the trial court.

¶41

There is no specific finding given by the trial court that the suit filed by the respondent/accused through his power of attorney holder was not in accordance with law or was an abuse of the process of the said Court. In the

¶42

CCC Nos.100488-489/2018

¶43

¶44

circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere in these contempt petitions. The contempt proceedings filed by the complainants herein are misconceived. Hence, they are dismissed.

¶45

In view of the dismissal of contempt petitions, IA No.1 of 2018 is also dismissed.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

RK/-

Sharada W/O Raghavendra Burali v. Shreeman Niranjan Shivalingeshwar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharada W/O Raghavendra Burali v. Shreeman Niranjan Shivalingeshwar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Vaishali Sayaji Mane Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Basappa Kuri S/O. Siddappa Vs Mr. Gollar Sheenaiaha (Incharge)

Venkappa Vs Smt.Ningawwa