Dismissed

Smt. Minal Morjaria v. Shri. G. Linganna

Karnataka HC10 Nov 2022CCC/79/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A civil contempt petition was filed against an Assisted Revenue Officer for alleged disobedience of a Lok Adalat order requiring issuance of a khatha. The accused argued the complainant failed to produce agreed-upon documents. The court dropped the contempt proceedings due to non-production of documents, reserving liberty to the complainant.

What did the court decide?

Contempt proceedings discontinued; liberty reserved to complainant to produce documents for consideration by B.B.M.P.

Smt. Minal Morjaria Vs Shri. G. Linganna — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CCC No. 79 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B VEERAPPA

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.79 OF 2021

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. MINAL MORJARIA D/O. TARALA MORJARIA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RESIDENT OF NO.11, "LAXMI MAHAL", BAPURBHAI, VASHI ROAD, VILE PARLE (WEST), MUMBAI-400 056.

¶11

…COMPLAINANT

¶12

(BY SRI PRADEEP, ADV., FOR SRI SHANMUKHAPPA)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SHRI G. LINGANNA ASST. REVENUE OFFICER (III) Digitally signed by BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, USHA MAHADEVAPURA ZONE, NAGENAHALLI SHANMUKHAPPA WHITEFIELD SUB-DIVISION, Location: High BENGALURU-560 066. Court of Karnataka

¶15

…ACCUSED

¶16

(BY SRI K.N. PUTTEGOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶17

¶18

CCC No. 79 of 2021

¶19

THIS C.C.C. IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, BY THE COMPLAINANT, WHEREIN SHE PRAYS THAT HON'BLE COURT BE PLEASED TO SUMMON, PROSECUTE AND PUNISH THE ACCUSED FOR HIS DELIBERATE AND WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER DATED 14-7-2018 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT (BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT) IN WRIT PETITION NO.26751 OF 2017 (LOK ADALAT NO.1268 OF 2018) VIDE ANNEXURE-C.

¶20

THIS C.C.C. IS COMING ON FOR HEARING ON INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, THIS DAY, B. VEERAPPA, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The complainant has filed the present contempt petition under the provisions of Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to take action against the accused for willful disobedience of the order dated 14-7-2018 passed before the Lok Adalat . The order of the Lok Adalat reads thus:

¶23

"In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of regular khatha in respect of the petition schedule property in favour of the petitioner vide her representation dated 25.03.2017 at Annexure-A.

¶24

2. After negotiations, the respondent No.4 has agreed to issue regular khatha in respect of the petition schedule property in favour of the petitioner for a period of six weeks from this day.

¶25

¶26

CCC No. 79 of 2021

¶27

The petitioner has agreed to make a representation and to produce relevant documents within a period of one week from this day. A joint memo is filed on behalf of the parties to this effect.

¶28

3. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed

¶29

of."

¶30

The above order has been passed based on the joint

¶31

memo which reads thus:

¶32

"JOINT MEMO

¶33

This Writ petition is filed seeking to issue regular khatha in respect of the petition schedule property in favour of the petitioner Vide her representation dated 25.03.2017 at Annexure-A. The Writ Petition has been referred to this Lok Adalat by the Hon'ble High Court U/S. 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. The petitioner and respondent have settled their claim before the Lok Adalat on the following terms:

¶34

The respondent No.4 has agreed to issue regular khatha in respect of the petition schedule property in favour of the petitioner for a period of six weeks from this day. The petitioner has agreed to

¶35

¶36

CCC No. 79 of 2021

¶37

make a representation and to produce relevant documents within a period of one week from this day.

¶38

Accordingly, both the petitioner and respondent prayed for disposal of the case in terms of the Joint Memo.

¶39

The parties to this petition have set their hands to this settlement before the Lok Adalat in the presence of Conciliators on this 14/07/2018 at Bengaluru Bench.

¶40

Sd/Sd/SIGNATURE OF PETITIONER SIGNATURE OF RESPONDENT

¶41

Sd/Sd/ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER G.A. FOR RESPONDENT"

¶42

Sri K.N. Puttegowda, learned counsel for the accused,

¶43

submits that before the Lok Adalat , learned counsel for B.B.M.P. has filed a memo dated 21-12-2021 stating that the matter has been disposed of with a direction to the complainant to produce relevant documents along with the representation. However, the complainant has not replied his portion of the undertaking, or has produced the documents.

¶44

¶45

CCC No. 79 of 2021

¶46

Learned counsel for the accused further submits that before the Lok Adalat, direction was issued to the complainant to produce relevant documents within a week and the learned counsel for the complainant had also agreed to produce the same within a week. However, the same is not produced even today.

¶47

Sri Pradeep, learned counsel for the complainant, has

¶48

filed memo dated 10-11-2022 along with copies of postal track record dated 1-9-2022 and letter dated 14-2-2019.

¶49

In the absence of any relevant documents, the contempt is not maintainable. Accordingly, the contempt proceedings are hereby dropped . However, liberty is reserved to the complainant to produce relevant documents, as agreed before Lok Adalat , in respect of the property in question and it is for the B.B.M.P. to consider the representation along with the documents and to proceed in accordance with law.

¶50

¶51

CCC No. 79 of 2021

¶52

Since the contempt proceedings are dropped, I.A. No.1 of

¶53

2021 filed for condoning the delay of 223 days in filing the

¶54

contempt does not survive for consideration and accordingly, it is disposed of.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

KVK

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38

Smt. Minal Morjaria v. Shri. G. Linganna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Minal Morjaria v. Shri. G. Linganna

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

Sri G S Subbanna Vs Smt K L Taneja

Shadaksharappa Vs Smt K L Taneja

Sri Mari Gowda Vs Smt K L Taneja

Sri K P Rupesh Kumar Vs Sri S Manjunath

Smt. Lakshmamma Vs Amit Masekar

Sri. K. M. Manjunath Vs Smt. Kaveri IAS