Sri Eeshwarappa v. Sri J Balashankara Krishnan

Karnataka HC28 Aug 2025CCC/382/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court civil contempt; Section 20 Contempt of Courts Act 1971 one-year limitation for contempt proceedings; condonation of delay under Section 5 Limitation Act; 881 days delay; Tirupathi Rao v. M.Lingamaiah 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1764; breach of interim order dated 17.12.2019 in RFA No.1813/2019 restraining alienation; gift deed dated 28.10.2020; contempt proceeding dropped.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the complainant: I.A.No.1/2025 seeking condonation of the 881-day delay is dismissed and the contempt proceeding is dropped. ¶¶53

Sri Eeshwarappa Vs Sri J Balashankara Krishnan — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:33489-DB CCC No. 382 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 382 OF 2024

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI EESHWARAPPA S/O LATE SRI. AARUSWAMYGOUNDER AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT M.G. COLONY VILLAGE AALUR POST, KASABA HOBLI HIRIYUR TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT

¶11

…COMPLAINANT

¶12

(BY SMT. SHARMILA GOWDA M.R., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAVINDRA M.R., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by CHANNEGOWDA PREMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

SRI. J. BALASHANKARA KRISHNAN S/O LATE SRI. JANAKIRAM AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT. AARANAKATTE VILLAGE UPPALAGERE MAJURE J.G. HALLI HOBLI HIRIYUR TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT

¶16

SMT. JANAKI @ JANANI W/O SRI. J. BALASHANKARAKRISHNAN AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT. AARANAKATTE VILLAGE UPPALAGERE MAJURE

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:33489-DB CCC No. 382 of 2024

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

J.G. HALLI HOBLI HIRIYUR TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT

¶21

…ACCUSED

¶22

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, BY THE COMPLAINANT PRAYS THAT THE HON'BLE COURT BE PLEASED TO PASS ORDER AGAINST THE ACCUSED No.1 AND 2 AS TO (i) ORDER TO PUNISH THE ACCUSED No.1 AND 2 FOR THE COMMITTED BREACH OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN ACCORDANCE OF SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, 1971, IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 17.12.2019 PASSED IN THE RFA No.1813/2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT AS PER ANNEXURE-A, THE ACCUSED No.1 HAS DELIBERATELY EXECUTED A GIFT DEED IN FAVOR OF ACCUSED No.2 TO TRANSFER THE SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY AS PER ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶25

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:33489-DB CCC No. 382 of 2024

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶29

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)

¶30

This contempt petition is initiated against the respondents for the willful disobedience of the interim order dated 17.12.2019 passed in RFA.No.1813/2019, whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court while allowing I.A.No.1/2019 directed the respondents-accused to restrain from alienating the suit schedule property in O.S.No.47/2016.

¶31

However, there is delay of 881 days in filing this contempt petition. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2025 has been filed by the complainant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking to condone the delay.

¶32

We have perused the affidavit filed in support of the application. It is stated in the affidavit that though the accused disobeyed the interim order dated 17.12.2019 passed in RFA No.1813/2019, by executing a registered Gift Deed in respect of the suit schedule property on 28.10.2020, the same came to the knowledge of the complainant only in the month of

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:33489-DB CCC No. 382 of 2024

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

February, 2024. Thereafter, he obtained the certified copy of the Gift Deed and filed this contempt petition. Hence, the delay has caused.

¶36

Section 20 of The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

¶37

reads as under;

¶38

"20. Limitation for actions for contempt.— No court shall initiate any proceedings of contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed."

¶39

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tirupathi

¶40

Rao Vs. M.Lingamaiah - 2024 SCC Online SC 1764 has

¶41

held at paragraphs 52 and 53 as under:

¶42

"52. Therefore, it would be correct to state that the court's power when dealing with the question of contempt, in a sense, is discretionary. It cannot be gainsaid that even in cases where disobedience of the order of the court is not disputed, the court may also accept a defence, if raised, of impossibility to comply with an order and come to the conclusion that since it is impossible to enforce its order, action to punish may not be initiated. That apart, refusal may be justified by grave concerns of public policy. Much would depend on the facts and circumstances of the

¶43

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:33489-DB CCC No. 382 of 2024

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

case, the nature of the contempt under enquiry, etc., which would enable the court to exercise its discretion either way. However, to demonstrate his bona fide, the contemnor ought to bring any valid defence for his disability to comply with the court's direction to its notice without wasting any time. Whatever be the position before it, nothing stands in the way of the high court from passing an order to ensure that nothing impedes the course of justice.

¶47

Reverting to the point of limitation, even in case of a petition disclosing facts constituting contempt, which is civil in nature, the petitioner cannot choose a time convenient to him to approach the Court. The statute refers to a specific time limit of one year from the date of alleged contempt for proceedings to be initiated; meaning thereby, as laid down in Pallav Sheth (supra), that the action should be brought within a year, and not beyond, irrespective of when the proceedings to punish for contempt are actually initiated by the high court".

¶48

By considering the provisions enumerated in Section 20 of the Contempt Act so also the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case, we are of the view that the explanation offered by the complainant for condonation of inordinate delay of 881 days cannot be accepted. In that view of the matter, IA No.1/2025 deserves to

¶49

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:33489-DB CCC No. 382 of 2024

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

be dismissed and same is accordingly dismissed.

¶53

Consequently, the contempt proceeding is dropped.

¶54

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

¶55