Dismissed¶40

Sri M Jayarama v. Sri M M Narayanappa

Karnataka HC3 Jul 2026CCC/1033/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CCC No. 1033 of 2025; High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru; decided 03.07.2026; bench: Vibhu Bakhru, Chief Justice (per) and K.S. Hemalekha, J; civil contempt; Sections 11 and 12, Contempt of Courts Act; alleged violation of status quo order dated 26.02.2018 in R.F.A.No.379/2018; cutting of Eucalyptus trees; Nulluru Village Survey Nos. 69/1, 69/2, 69/40, 69/50, 96; insufficient material to establish accused's involvement; complaint closed; liberty to file fresh complaint on new material; NC: 2026:KHC:33405-DB.

What did the court decide?

No contempt proceedings initiated against the accused; complaint closed. Liberty reserved to the complainant to file a fresh complaint upon producing material establishing the accused's involvement in removal of the trees. ¶40

Sri M Jayarama Vs Sri M M Narayanappa — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the accused willfully disobeyed the orders passed in RFA No.379/2018 (status quo direction dated 26.02.2018) such that contempt proceedings should be initiated and the accused punished under the Contempt of Courts Act.

¶23

Court's answer

The material placed on record does not establish that the accused is involved in removing (cutting down) the trees from the subject lands.

¶39

Ratio / Principle

It is not apposite to initiate any proceedings against the accused under the Contempt of Courts Act; the complaint is accordingly closed.

¶40

Key takeaways

Clarified that if the complainant produces material establishing the contrary (i.e., the accused's involvement), he is at liberty to file a fresh complaint.obiter¶41-42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Contempt Petition (Secs. 11 & 12, Contempt of Courts Act) before the High Court of Karnataka (DB: Vibhu Bakhru, CJ and K.S. Hemalekha, J; per the Chief Justice). The complainant alleged willful disobedience of the Co-ordinate Bench order dated 26.02.2018 in R.F.A.No.379/2018, whereby the parties were directed to maintain status quo over the suit schedule properties, claiming the accused cut down Eucalyptus trees on lands at Nulluru Village (Sy.Nos. 69/1, 69/2, 69/40, 69/50 and 96). The accused's counsel submitted that the 81-year-old accused resides in Bengaluru, had not visited the subject lands, and was himself aggrieved by the destruction of the trees. Finding that the material on record did not establish the accused's involvement in removing the trees, the Court held it not apposite to initiate proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act and closed the complaint, while clarifying that the complainant remains free to file a fresh complaint if he produces material establishing otherwise.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:33405-DB CCC No. 1033 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 1033 OF 2025

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI M JAYARAMA

¶12

S/O.LATE.MUNISWAMYGOWDA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.762, 1^ST D MAIN, GIRINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 085

¶13

…COMPLAINANT

¶14

(BY SRI JAYASIMHA K S, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SRINIVASA K L, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

1. SRI N M NARAYANAPPA

¶17

Digitally signed by VEERENDRA KUMAR K M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶18

S/O.LATE. MUNISWAMYGOWDA

¶19

AGED ABOUT 81YEARS

¶20

RESIDENT OF NALLUR VILLAGE BETAMANGALA HOBLI BANGARPET TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 114

¶21

…ACCUSED

¶22

(BY Ms. ANAGHA N SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S RAJENDRA, ADVOCATE)

¶23

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO INITIATE NECESSARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR DIS-OBEYING THE ORDERS PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN RFA NO.379/2018

¶24

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:33405-DB CCC No. 1033 of 2025

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

DATED 26.02.2018 AND DATE 28.02.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND C AND TO PUNISH THE ACCUSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶31

The complainant has filed the present complaint alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 26.02.2018 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in R.F.A.No.379/2018. In terms of the said order, the parties were directed to maintain status quo in respect of the suit schedule properties.

¶32

The complainant alleges that the accused violated the said order and cut down the Eucalyptus trees standing on the subject lands. (Lands measuring 19 guntas in Survey No.69/1; 26 guntas in

¶33

Survey No.69/2, 12 guntas in Survey No.69/40; 28 guntas in Survey No.69/50 and 2 acres in Survey No.96 of Nulluru Village).

¶34

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:33405-DB CCC No. 1033 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

The learned counsel appearing to the accused submits that

¶38

the accused is 81 years of age and he is residing in Bengaluru. She submits that the accused has not visited the subject lands and is also aggrieved by the destruction of the trees.

¶39

The material placed on record does not establish that the accused is involved in removing the trees from the subject lands.

¶40

In view of the above, we do not consider is apposite to initiate any proceedings against the accused under the Contempt of Courts Act. The complaint is, accordingly, closed.

¶41

We, however, clarify that if the complainant produces any

¶42

material that would establish otherwise, he is liberty to file a fresh.

¶43

Sd/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶44

Sd/(K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE

¶45

KMV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40

Sri M Jayarama v. Sri M M Narayanappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M Jayarama v. Sri M M Narayanappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. B Shivakumar Vs Sri.Somashekar.K.S

Akshaykumar Dyamanagouda Kulkarni Vs the State of Karnataka

Maganlal Bhimji Patel Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Priyanka Vs Sri. Prathik

Mr. Arvind Mehra Vs Shri.Jagadeesha.G

Sri. Rajesh. S. T. Vs Mr. Raghavendra Prasanna