Contempt petition filed alleging violation of a prior mandatory injunction requiring the gate to remain open. Court closed proceeding due to respondents' denial but reserved liberty for future civil action regarding obstruction.
Contempt petition dismissed; liberty reserved to approach civil court if gate remains closed or road obstructed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
| CONT CAS (C) No.36 of 2017 Noting by Officer or Serial Date Office notes, reports, orders or Advocate No Proceedings with signature |
|---|
| BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA 13.09.2017 |
| Heard Mr. S.K. Deb, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. K.N. Bhattacharji, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. On allegation that the respondents, on showing the wilful disobedience, have violated the direction of this court in the judgment and order dated 06.03.2017 delivered in CRP No.102 of 2016. By the said judgment and order dated 06.03.2017 this court had directed by the modified temporary mandatory injunction order that without removing the brick wall or the gate that has been fixed, the defendants shall keep the gate open for movement of the plaintiff or his men over the path as described on the southern boundary of the suit land. The respondents have come forward with their reply and categorically stated that on no occasion they kept the gate closed by restricting the movements of the plaintiff. |
| Mr. S.K. Deb, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has |
| submitted even though they kept the |
| gate open but they had created |
| obstruction in the movement over the path. However, that was not the dispute |
Moumita
Page 1 of 2
CONT CAS (C) No.36 of 2017
Noting by Officer or Serial Date Office notes, reports, orders or Advocate No Proceedings with signature
before this court when the said judgment and order was passed. In view of this, this contempt proceeding is closed. However liberty shall remain reserved with the petitioner, if any point of time the gate is not kept open or the road is obstructed the plaintiff petitioner may approach the civil court where the suit is pending for adjudication for taking action for breach and violation of the said temporary mandatory injunction as passed by this court. By this order, the civil court is authorised to take appropriate action against the respondents if they are found at fault. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE
Moumita
Page 2 of 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the contempt proceeding is warranted given the respondents' explanation that they never closed the gate.
Whether the liberty to approach civil court remains operative if obstruction persists.
Petitioner
Respondents
S. Talapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Proceedings for wilful disobedience of a court order under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
