IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 669 of 2004()
1. DHANABHAGYAM AMMAL,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SPECIAL GRADE SECRETARY
... Respondent
2. THE PRESIDENT, PUDUPPARIYARAM GRAMA
For Petitioner :SRI.P.N.KRISHNANKUTTY ACHAN(SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID
Dated :20/06/2008
O R D E R
HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.
--------------------------------------------
C.R.P. NO. 669 OF 2004
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of June, 2008
O R D E R
The plaintiff in O.S. No.302 of 1996 on the file of the Additional
Munsiff’s Court, Palakkad is the revision petitioner. The revision is
directed against the judgment dated 16.1.2004 in C.M.A. No.27 of 1998
which arose out of the order dated 31.3.1998 in I.A. No.1749 of 1996 in
the above suit.
2. By order dated 22.6.1996 in I.A. No.1498 of 1996, the Munsiff’s
Court directed the defendants in the suit not to implement the order of
cancellation of Ext.A12 cinema licence till the disposal of the suit. The
plaintiff complained that the defendants violated the said order and
thereby committed contempt of court. The trial court by order dated
31.3.1998 in I.A. No.1749 of 1996 directed detention of the
defendants/respondents herein in civil prison for three months under Order
XXXIX Rule 2A C.P.C. The said order was reversed in appeal and the
appellate court set aside the order. Aggrieved by the judgment of the
lower appellate court, the plaintiff has come up in revision.
C.R.P. NO.669/2004 2
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that inspite of the order of the trial
court not to implement the order of cancellation of the licence, the
Panchayat did not allow the plaintiff to conduct the cinema show. It
withheld the DCR and tickets and refused to seal the additional DCR and
tickets to conduct the show. It is submitted by the plaintiff that by Ext.P3
letter dated 29.6.1996, the Panchayat rejected renewal of licence based on
the same allegations which the trial court already found against them in the
order in I.A. No.1498 of 1996. In support of her case, the plaintiff
examined PW.1 and marked Exts.P1 to P4(a). The defendants were
examined as RWs.1 and 2. No documents were produced on their side.
The first defendant as RW.1 admitted that he had got information
regarding the order passed in I.A. No.1498 of 1996. It is the case of the
plaintiff that on the strength of the order dated 22.6.1996 she had
approached the defendants for conducting the show, but they refused to
put seal in the tickets and DCR which is a pre requisite for conducting the
show. It is her further case that since her written requests were turned
down, she sent a request through registered post, but the defendants denied
having received the same. The first defendant as RW.1 admitted that he
was in court on 19.6.1996 and was aware of the fact that the case was
posted to 22.6.1996. He also admitted that he had read the application,
I.A. No.1498 of 1996, and had got information regarding the order passed
C.R.P. NO.669/2004 3
in the said application.
4. The learned Munsiff rightly found that the first
defendant/Secretary was aware of the order passed in I.A. No.1498 of
1996 on the same day on which it was passed. It is an admitted fact that
without sealing the tickets and DCR, the licensee cannot run the theatre.
The first defendant did not permit the plaintiff to conduct the show on
22.6.1996 and thereafter. He also issued Ext.P3 letter to the plaintiff
rejecting the request of the plaintiff for renewal of the licence for the same
reasons which were considered and found against the defendants by the
trial court. The trial court concluded that the Panchayat fully knowing the
contents of the injunction application and the order passed by the court in
the said application intentionally violated the order and that their conduct
lead to the closure of the theatre.
5. The President of the Panchayat who was examined as RW.2
failed to give satisfactory reasons for not complying with the order passed
by the court in I.A. No.1498 of 1996. The acts of the first
defendant/Secretary evidently show that he disobeyed the order of the
court. RW.2 had categorically admitted that the contents of the order was
conveyed to him and to the first defendant by their counsel on the
C.R.P. NO.669/2004 4
following day, that is, on 23.6.1996. The trial court also held that
disobedience of the order is an obstruction to the administration of justice
and amounts to contempt of court. The trial court thus ordered detention
of the defendants in civil prison for a period of three months under Order
XXXIX Rule 2A C.P.C.
6. The respondents/defendants challenged the order before the
appellate court and as per judgment in C.M.A. No.27 of 1998, the
appellate court allowed the appeal and set aside the order in I.A. No.1749
of 1996. According to the plaintiff, the lower appellate court did not go
into the merits of the contention raised by her that the order of the trial
court was violated. The appellate court relied on the final judgment of this
Court in Writ Appeal No.2498 of 2002 produced as Ext.B38 which
confirmed the order of the learned Single Judge in O.P. No.4482 of 1998
to the effect that there was enough material to justify the action of the
Panchayat in cancelling the licence of the plaintiff with effect from
11.6.1996 though the period of original permit granted was upto
30.6.1996. The lower appellate court also found that there was no
direction in I.A.No.1498 of 1996 to renew the permit and that without
renewing the permit, the plaintiff is not entitled to conduct the cinema
theatre.
C.R.P. NO.669/2004 5
7. The trial court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court
reported in Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla v. Hind Rubber Industries
Pvt. Ltd., A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 1240 wherein it is held that persons who
disobey an order of interim injunction passed by a civil court under Order
XXXIX Rule 2A C.P.C. is liable to be punished even if it is found
ultimately that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the
suit. The view taken by the Supreme Court was followed by this Court in
the decisions reported in Cheruvannoor Nallalam Grama Panchayat v.
Ravi, 2006(1) K.L.T. 546 and Aravindaksha Menon v. Raghava
Menon, 2007(2) K.L.T. 427.
8. As rightly found by the courts below, the plaintiff had the licence
to run the theatre at the time of the order dated 22.6.1996 and the licence
expired only on 30.6.1996. This Court is called upon to decide whether
there was wilful violation of the order dated 22.6.1996 in I.A. No.1498 of
1996. If the first defendant/Secretary had complied with the order of the
learned Munsiff, certainly the plaintiff could have run the theatre till
30.6.1996. It is true that this Court by judgment in O.P. No.4482 of 1998
as confirmed by the judgment in Writ Appeal No.2498 of 2002 justified
the action of the Panchayat in cancelling the licence with effect from
C.R.P. NO.669/2004 6
11.6.1996. Going by the decisions rendered by this Court in the above
Original Petition and Writ Appeal, it is clear that the plaintiff could run the
theatre till 30.6.1996 pursuant to the order dated 22.6.1996 in which there
was a specific direction issued to the respondents not to implement the
order of cancellation of the licence. So, the finding of the appellate court
that without renewing the permit, the plaintiff is not entitled to conduct the
cinema theatre and therefore, it cannot be said that the defendants have
wilfully violated the order in I.A. No.1498 of 1996 is not justified in the
facts and circumstances of the case. The reversal of the order of the
learned Munsiff and the reasons stated by the appellate court are faulty and
liable to be interfered with. The materials on record undoubtedly show
that the Panchayat disobeyed the order of the civil court and thereby
committed contempt of court. Therefore, I am of the view that
disobedience of order has caused obstruction in the administration of
justice which amounts of contempt of court. In the circumstances, the
finding of the trial court that the action of the Secretary of the Panchayat
amounts to contempt of court is unassailable. The judgment under appeal
is, therefore, set aside and the finding of the trial court is restored with the
modification as stated below.
9. The trial court ordered detention of the defendants/respondents in
C.R.P. NO.669/2004 7
civil prison for three months. On the question of sentence, the learned
senior counsel appearing for the respondents requested this Court to
consider the matter sympathetically. I fail to understand why the second
defendant/President of the Panchayat was also proceeded against. Learned
senior counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that interest of
justice will be met with if the sentence is confined to the first
defendant/Secretary alone. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I
also feel that the proceedings against the second defendant/President can
be dropped. I, therefore, order that the act of disobedience committed by
the Panchayat shall be dealt with only by proceeding against the Secretary
of the Panchayat. Hence, taking a lenient view, this Court is of the opinion
that reduction of the imprisonment against the first defendant from three
months to court hours for two days and a fine of Rs.10,000/- will meet the
ends of justice.
10. The Special Grade Secretary of Puduppariyaram Grama
Panchayat, Palakkad Taluk as on 22.6.1996 is directed to appear before
the Additional Munsiff’s Court, Palakkad on 8.7.2008 and 9.7.2008 and
report to the learned Munsiff before 11 a.m. with a copy of this order.
The present Secretary shall inform him about the order directly and by
registered post. He shall remain in the court hall on 8.7.2008 and 9.7.2008
C.R.P. NO.669/2004 8
till the rising of the court. He shall also pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- to the
legal heir of the deceased plaintiff who was impleaded as additional
second revision petitioner on or before 8.7.2008. The order of the learned
Munsiff shall stand modified to the above extent.
The Civil Revision Petition is allowed as above. There will be no
order as to costs.
(HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE)
sp/
C.R.P. NO.669/2004 9
HAURN-UL-RASHID, J.
C.R.P. NO. 669/2004
O R D E R
20th June, 2008.
C.R.P. NO.669/2004 10