IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAB mama nus THE 30% DAY or JANUARY, "L" ' -- H BEFORE - THE HOBFBLE MR JUs':*Ici~2,r:.:3 ILi.Aiii!;§;' A wnrr pmmora no.3k1'7m12ws§ax-cr$é3%}% BETWEEK: » ' : Sri Prafuli, S / 0 Ba3akIishn21..D}:shpan;ie. " _ Aged about 58 years, _ " Rfat 'I'erda.1,'1'q. Jamkhan.di,_._ ' Dist. Baglkote. A ' ' PETITIONER (3? am. A-2dé;.;' A1313: 1.
Shri i°aI”is3=,S/5:1 Savéxntannavar,
Aged abcautitfi
‘~ S/cA§V’S’ai.–.appa Savantannavar,
so’.
” Agéri aizacjzat 4%} years.
S/tz S»ai;i§zappa Savamtannavar,
‘!;gct=.ci about -6 lgyears,
V V _ AI} rféli neg? Temple,
. . é 4’ ‘ — Bagaikote.
“I_’erda1, ‘I’*-q. ‘ ‘_ <11,
S/0 Satyappa Savantannavar,
Aged about 53 years,
R/ad: 1321: G.L.I-3.C,Canal, Tcrdai,
" "Tq. Jamkhandi, asst. Bagaikate. …REsPQ:~mEN':'s
5/
THIS Wi?I'I' PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226'.}_3LN.D
227 OF' THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUA'SP{V.'_I'}*iE1.¢
ORDER PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE(JR'.DN), BANAI-£A'F"{'1" I'r~i_"
CEVIL MISC No.1/O3 DATED 24/7/03 As PER ANNEXUREA K; ..e;=rm-.–.T A-
THE) ORDER PASSED on I.A.No.HI DT. 22/7105; AS» PER
ANNEXURE~J AND ALLOW CIVIL MISC No.1 OF 2003- £§ND"AI;SO
ALLOW I.A.No.IEI on THE FILE 012* THE' 'C£V§L. JUD_GE[JR;D?~I)
BANAHATTI .
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING GNEOR §>§<é_AE;.:Vr»+fINz§;Ri*%
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT Maps THE,EoLuLQW'mG:VVV "
0Rn£R _ ' "'%
Head the learned fhéfjaeiifigner.
2. Noticc=_:t(>.._the is dispensed. With.
3. finder Articles 226 and 227
of the conétirgiaop: -9£’.17nd$§é, the petitioner has called in
.«vv.gues%:iti*x1,Et;I1c _f'()I¥1′(iA4II’VS’d.£:iiZEI:;i 24.7.08 and 22.7.2008 passed by
‘{1ivi1,__”~J:.1(ige_(Junior Division), Banahatti, in Civil
N0. Q1 i}= [H and also the main petition
4.” ._ *’I’he pcfifioner filed I.A.IiI to consolidate Misc.
E.P.No.1{}/ 2003. The said applicatien has been
‘ : ;~{:_j¢§f2t€d. Thcmafier, the petition filed under Seéfien 15} of
&/
V.’-Hoeéing =I3gi1i1§1ie{g.__Co-operative Society Ltd., Bangaiore
CFC R/W Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act also gas
been rejected. Therefore, this writ peiition.
5. The learned counsel for ttxepetitioaxer ‘4
that the impugned oréers cannot
also submitted that the petition’ filed gm¢1- seeiieg:1$1ejo£%’
CPO R/W Section 3.2 of the of was
maintainable and)’ the C-Quay”: Waeé ‘net jusufied in
rejecting the application peiifion.
6. ” cefrfiz-f11i}y,eonsidereéi the submission made
by the leei-:1ed’_
me DAiiIiei.on.vBench of this (301111: in Karnataka
V
Kxislifiapioa v}V{n’shna3.,a’ h and others reporieci in 2008(1)
Journal page 336, has held as follows:
{A “CONTEMPT 0? covers ACT, :97: «-
“Se<:t.ions 11 and 15» contempt proceedings.
initiation of contempt p1'oeeeéings~Disobedienee
of interim order passec3.- Disobedience of final
l/,.