Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Sri. B. Chandiradhara Vs Sri Venkatesh — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2025)

Home
Karnataka HC
2025
Sri. B. Chandiradhara Vs Sri VenkateshSri. B. Chandiradhara v. Sri Venkatesh

Dismissed¶43

Sri. B. Chandiradhara v. Sri Venkatesh

Karnataka HC5 Mar 2025CCC/15/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, CCC No. 15 of 2024 (civil contempt), decided 05.03.2025 by Chief Justice N. V. Anjaria (authoring) with Justice M. I. Arun. Filed under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 r/w Article 215 of the Constitution by complainant B. Chandiradhara against accused Venkatesh for alleged deliberate disobedience of the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2018 in R.A. No. 69/2016 (Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Gubbi; arising from O.S. No. 118/2014, decree dated 18.07.2016, set aside on appeal), which directed the defendants to execute and register the sale deed within two months. Held: proper remedy for compliance is an execution petition before the competent court; contempt jurisdiction declined; petition dismissed with liberty to file execution petition. Keywords: civil contempt, disobedience of decree, execution petition remedy, sale deed execution, specific performance decree, Tumakuru/Gubbi, NC: 2025:KHC:9501-DB.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to the complainant to file an execution petition in accordance with law. ¶43

Why is it important?

The judgment and order dated 16.04.2018 in R.A. No. 69/2016, for its compliance, has to be executed by filing an execution petition; the remedy of an execution petition before the competent court is available to the complainant. ¶41

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty reserved to the complainant to file an execution petition in accordance with law.

Issue for consideration

Whether this Court should initiate contempt proceedings and punish the accused for alleged deliberate disobedience of the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2018 in R.A. No. 69/2016 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gubbi (Annexures A and A-1).

Court's answer

The judgment and order dated 16.04.2018 in R.A. No. 69/2016, for its compliance, has to be executed by filing an execution petition; the remedy of an execution petition before the competent court is available to the complainant.

Ratio / Principle

Since the execution remedy is available, this Court is not inclined to exercise its jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Ss. 10 & 12 r/w Article 215 of the Constitution — Civil contempt — Complaint (CCC) by decree-holder seeking initiation of contempt proceedings and punishment of the accused for alleged deliberate disobedience of the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2018 in R.A. No. 69/2016 (Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gubbi), whereby the plaintiff's appeal under Order 41 Rule 1 r/w Section 96 CPC was allowed, the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 118/2014 dated 18.07.2016 were set aside, and the defendants were directed to execute and register the sale deed within two months — Held: For its compliance, such an order has to be executed by filing an execution petition, and that remedy before the competent court is available to the complainant; since the remedy is available, the Court is not inclined to exercise its jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — Contempt petition dismissed, reserving liberty to the complainant to file an execution petition in accordance with law. (Paras 3–5)

A

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:9501-DB CCC No. 15 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN CCC NO. 15 OF 2024 (CIVIL)

BETWEEN:

SRI B. CHANDIRADHARA S/O. P. K. BASAVARAJU

AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

R/AT PINNENAHALLI VILLAGE

CHELUR HOBLI

GUBBI TALUK

TUMAKURU DIST - 572 117.

…COMPLAINANT

(BY SRI ADAVEESHAIAH B., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by PRABHAKAR SWETHA KRISHNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka

SRI VENKATESH S/O. LAKKANNA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT NARAVANGALA AMANIKERE BELLAVI HOBLI TUMAKURU TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 107.

…ACCUSED

(BY SRI AJAY KUMAR M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI K. MURTHY, ADVOCATE)

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 10 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, R/W ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, BY THE COMPLAINANT, WHERE IN HE PRAYS THAT THE HON'BLE COURT BE PLEASED TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AND PUNISH THE ACCUSED FOR HAVING DELIBERATELY DISOBEYED THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.04.2018 IN R.A. NO.69/2016 PASSED BY THE

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:9501-DB CCC No. 15 of 2024

HON'BLE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GUBBI VIDE ANNEXUREA AND A-1 RESPECTIVELY.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)

Jurisdiction of this court under the Contempt of Courts Act,

1971 is invoked by the complainant represented by learned advocate Mr. B. Adaveeshaiah in respect of the judgment and order dated 16.04.2018 passed by the Court of Additional Senior

Civil Judge, Gubbi in Regular Appeal No.69 of 2016.

The operative part of the order reads as under,

"Appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff under order 41 Rule 1 R/w Sec.96 of CPC is hereby allowed.

Consequently, Judgment and decree passed in O.S. 118/2014 dated:18.07.2016 is hereby set aside.

The respondents/defendants are hereby directed to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property within 2 months from the date of this order.

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:9501-DB CCC No. 15 of 2024

The appellant/plaintiff is directed to deposit the balance sale consideration amount before the trial court within one month from today.

If the respondents/defendants fail to execute the sale deed on specified time, the appellant/plaintiff is at liberty to approach the trial court for execution of sale deed and get it registered.

Draw decree accordingly."

The aforesaid order, for its compliance, has to be executed

by filing execution petition. Remedy of execution petition before the competent court is available to the complainant.

Since the remedy as above is available, the court is not inclined to exercise its jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

The contempt petition is dismissed reserving liberty for the complainant to file execution petition in accordance with law.

Sd/(N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

DDU/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether this Court should initiate contempt proceedings and punish the accused for alleged deliberate disobedience of the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2018 in R.A. No. 69/2016 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gubbi (Annexures A and A-1).¶21
The court held
The judgment and order dated 16.04.2018 in R.A. No. 69/2016, for its compliance, has to be executed by filing an execution petition; the remedy of an execution petition before the competent court is available to the complainant.ratio¶41

Statutes considered

4 provisions across 3 enactments

AI extract

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971Sections 10 and 12¶21 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971¶42
Constitution of IndiaArticle 215¶21
Code of Civil ProcedureOrder 41 Rule 1 read with Section 96¶32

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Regular Appeal No. 69 of 2016, filed by the plaintiff under Order 41 Rule 1 r/w Section 96 CPC, was allowed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gubbi, vide judgment and order dated 16.04.2018.¶32
Prior proceeding
By the appellate judgment, the judgment and decree dated 18.07.2016 in O.S. No. 118/2014 were set aside.¶33
Prior proceeding
The respondents/defendants were directed to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property within 2 months.¶34
Prior proceeding
The appellant/plaintiff was directed to deposit the balance sale consideration amount before the trial court within one month.¶37
Prior proceeding
On the defendants' failure to execute the sale deed in time, the plaintiff was given liberty to approach the trial court for execution of the sale deed and its registration.¶38

Parties & counsel

AI extract

applicant
Sri B. Chandiradhara s/o P. K. Basavaraju¶8
Adaveeshaiah B.
respondent
Sri Venkatesh s/o Lakkanna¶18
Ajay Kumar M., K. Murthy

Coram

AI extract

N. V. Anjariaauthor¶27
M.I. Arunmember¶25

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 5 Mar 2025 · March
Registered: 5 Jan 2024
Case no.: CCC/15/2024
CNR: KAHC010008452024
Topic: Contempt of Court
Bench: N. V. Anjaria CJ M.i.arun
Disposal: DISMISSED
Case type: CCC (CIVIL)

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from N. V. Anjaria CJ M.i.arun

Smt Puttamma Vs Smt T C Annapoorna
4 Mar 2025
Sri S Muniraju Vs the State of Karnataka
4 Mar 2025
M/S Kallatra Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Teltonika India Pvt. Ltd.
4 Mar 2025
Jagadeesh D Vs Hemalatha
5 Mar 2025
Sri Mahantappa S Turakanur Vs Smt.Shalini Rajneesh
5 Mar 2025
Narayana Swamy Vs Sri Rajendra Kumar Kataria
5 Mar 2025

Cite this judgement

Sri. B. Chandiradhara v. Sri Venkatesh, CCC/15/2024 (KA), decided on 5 March 2025.

The High Court of Karnataka publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes4

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971Sections 10 and 12 · Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
Constitution of IndiaArticle 215
Code of Civil ProcedureOrder 41 Rule 1 read with Section 96

View all statutes

Procedural history5

Regular Appeal No. 69 of 2016, filed by the plaintiff under Order 41 Rule 1 r/w Section 96 CPC, was allowed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gubbi, vide judgment and order dated 16.04.2018.
By the appellate judgment, the judgment and decree dated 18.07.2016 in O.S. No. 118/2014 were set aside.

View full history

Bench / Coram

N. V. Anjaria and M.I. Arun

Parties & counsel