High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri.R.Muniswamy vs Sri.T.V.Govinda Reddy on 16 September, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Sri.R.Muniswamy vs Sri.T.V.Govinda Reddy on 16 September, 2010
Author: J.S.Khehar(Cj) And Chellur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATE!) THIS THE 1.6?" DAY OF SEPTEMBER 

PRESENT

mg HOI_\?'BLE MR.J.S.KH.E3HAR, CHEEF   

AND   

'1'HE3 HONBLE MRSJUSTICE2 £Vfi'A§K_}ULZx 'CAH'E£.LIiR~.fi 'i.

ccc No.1065/.2f'@.1'0(C1vI_L)--._Af,  
BETWEEN 1 % "

SriR.1\/Iuniswamy, _    
S/0 Ramaiah, Aged about 53 years;  ' ' "
R/at No.1';/"3, Behind E$i1_ek2§r1a11éi1l'jV-_u ' "
Petra} I3ur1k,_VE3aI1f:ie_I Road, % V 
Ba1"1§§aIore--§)6CjQ70;7--._ ,      
    Compiainant

Adv0i:atés.,) " 

(By  for Sri J.C.Kumar,

ASE 

 V'  _ 1  ;'Sr;i -L'.1'.V.AGoxfificia' Raddy?

.  0V..£+3e--::'fa.31r1e1, Aged about 70 yearss
 V _ 2 I231: '?}iy2_1igjapp21na.haiI_i Viilagcz,
~. " '~.V''S2iIj'i'§_f)'L1§Ei Hobii. Agnekal Taluk,
A  B2111g§a1g}:*e Urban D:i_striCt;.

V ' 2 Sari VF{£1i'1121l'l_iE1_¥'I:"zI1£1.

~., A' ' Deputy '.£'ahs:i.'Idar, Nanda K_at::ht'.1'1',
*  _Sa1"j21pu1"a Habli, Anekal "aiuk,
Bar1ga.1m:e Urban I_)ist.rici:.

"  W3 Srntfisha Ranig

Spe(:1'.a1 'I'ahsi}da:', Anekai '.E'21h1k,
Bzilageaiore Urban Ej)istr'ic:i':.



 

19

4 Sn' Veeresh.
Revezmxs. I11SpE.?Ci'.(}f, HL1Sk'L1I' Circxie.
Sarjapura Hobli, A11ekaiTa1uk,
Bangalore Urban E)istrict_

5 Sri Yaéiresh,
Village Accotlntant,
S.Me€i::1halli V'i1lag€,    j
Sarjapura Hobii, A11eka1'i'al11k,_ '  
Bangalore Urban I3istric€;. ' i  * '

[By Sn' P.Sh1va1}s:z1'1"f1:e1:.i?; Advdbaiéfér 
Sri       

This CCC is filecifii/3  1'2 : @,f the contempt of
court act by the Qc)mp1a'ina:1_t.,;xv}i*evrciVr;..--§'ze prays that
this Hoyfbie (_Z'O'L.1__rt  "pi§:a.Seeti.i§:z1é:e:_ of t--! 1'eV_('=1'cier passed by the
learned Sing--.'r:_e : j':j'dge"*ffof"'viithéi 'H0n'1:>Ie Court in
R.S.A.N0V..92,?'2Oi':O;:A_d_ai;»eCEV.__I'6196.20£0 vide Annexure -C.

'I'}1is" CCC"éioming-T.._61'1__ for orders this day, Chief
Justice pa_ssr::d the 'fQ*i1_O'\7~.dn'g :

bRDER

T   C.J.W{'f)ral):

 this (:oL'1_:'t passed the f0_IIowir3g

k_m~dm'~ RFVA 92/10 MisC.Cvi.1\}'().5'}"?' /2010 :

"T his Court. doth order that
pending admisssicm of the above RSA.
£1116 judgment, and cieciree cit:
31.03.2009 paisssed by the Eearned
Irlorfble Se:i~;i0'11s J11 dge, FT C41.
Ba1'1gaE0r:3 Rurai ciistirict, Ba:3gaI_0r<3:, in

L ._. ACci;';séd  *'



U3

RA No.70/2002 be and the same is
hereby sta};ed {iii} next date of heaving."

2. Allegiiig disebedience of the Order passje'd.T by

this Court, the <:re113.pIain:;1m pet.it:i011er 1"1.21s.~..i_'ii_}e.d

instarzi: eentempt petition. This C0t1ri.,_.}3e{s-ed the

factual position depicted in 

response thereof, Courztel' afiiisdewit, lrias ubeenygfiled by
Respondent No.3 Wheirein, if isV_iIi'¢.erazIi--21 stated as under:

“I state thsi ._the ;c0inpi~:§1jn–ant
along with ..thej’1ei:i’*1: dated ‘7.*?.i201O
furnished edpyi 10:” th’e..erd’er–V~passed
in me’ zibdve-‘:-_4sai«q’–..__RS_A”7’N0_;9’2/ 2010 to
my office sac} ‘éheV brought to
my–Vs.nQ”tj§_Ce’amid’-_t.herea,f€2eri in View of
13011 _eXfensi3on –.e’i7_ interim order on

25.06.2010 and “also in View of the
_0rder”~.p21s.se-d Trial Court in
Elxecutién-1_V Petiiiion N018/2009
°re–gist:eri’:3g ‘the’Sa1e Deed in favour Of
one “1T.VLVGovinda Reddy by the process
_”_Q’f-,:he”‘C0-ilxrt. and also on the basis of
Deed. as the Assistant.

Ccvimmgissioner has issued an order
15.7.2010 c1i1’eci_:1’ng me to issue
iieréessary check list: for the purpose of
erif.eri’ng the name Of Sri Govmda
Reddy in the revenue records. I have

‘A issued a checklist: to the 41:.”

resporacierfi. Copy ef the orcier in
RSA .N’0.92/ZOETO amt} the Sale Deed
(3’X€()I.l’E,(3C3 in favour of Gevinda Recidy
t:h1’011gh the process of the Court and

contempt petition, issued 1j:e_t’ice ins the resgfiindents. “E22

the di1’ccti0n issued by {Iris Assistaru.
Commissiozmr dated 25.07.2010 are
pxsoduced h.eI'<:wit:11 and l11E1I'k€d as
A11ncxures R1, R2 and R3
respec:i,iV<2ly."

3′ It is ihc: c0nt:enii0r1 of R:3sp0nd{-211%. NQ–;;§3 .

order which is subject matt.e’r_»0.f.__gri¢i?2iii{:éj OT V

contempt petition:-:r was passed (in 1:’50.’7′.20~}.0

juncture, the interim order didéngnt exist, in as ‘as,

the interim order was um-Yer e;sit€rided–~..bey0:i’dv .2.5,..€:3.2010.

4. To <:0I1_tr0ve1't__ .f}_b;:jt€"i":t..i00;?1jvv..'advanced on
behalf of "E<:21:I'ned counsel for
the complazjiiqalidtd;fpeffi,i0fif;:?' ;'5€Jii1ts'dVV'0ut, that the: order
dated by this Court on
6.8.20 30 pdassing' .'I¢C},1V4140WiI}§g; order:

“ThVis.__vxCoL1}:t. doth order t.11-at:

._ ~ fiaeagdinsg a.d_m1″s’si<3'n of the above RSA,
th_e.i1f11'e2?im order of stay granted on
0"1;.6;'E5a.'2;.0'1,0;*..be and the same is hereby

._c0fit',i"_r_1'L__ne':~d"till next date: of heari'r1g."

“We”have given our thoughiiful Consideration to

:’1′:,11″t’–; * SaU.b1″VIs1ISS1OI}S advanced by t:.h.e learned ctounsczl zfdr

— th–:*. fiizal parties” The-Ere is no doubt in our mind, izhai: the

ifiterirxa c)re:£:3_rf on the basis sf wh.i<:%1, the instani:

c:0.t1t:r:mpt pet:it,i01’1 has bE3L”.I1 flied. was not eXt’,e1’1C£e.d

beyond 25.6.2010. The sale deed was di1’ect:ed iic) be

exectmed by the Asst.C0mmi.sasi0n<:r vide em orcier dated
15.7.2010, whereupon. {.119 Sale was dir<~:c{.€d to be

exectltied by the accused respondent. No.8 on 15. ?""…V2-f¢)_ 3~'.)_.

Ever} if we xve’re to take into cor1side1*at.ion_;’ifi”1c2. ‘«.”31fc}€;%;:’
dated 6.8.2010 eXtracf.ed above? it is e1ppa1′<:'-Wt t}1a1f;'€.h<*3_'_"

same was not in existence __.wh_er1 _”f:1″ié’= fa(fC1.i_S<:d-._V
respondent No.3 passed the o1§der_ ciaxed'71'5_.'?,2.Q1Q: A'

Thus viewed, we are sa1tisiiedA.__ {hat the "a4(:{',t1'S€E'd "

Respondeni. cannot: be held gtliliz-ypf and

imf;enti011aI disobedience of t4i”1*e i’:}teriir11._bfdef§ dated

16.6.2Q”1’O’.” – T. }-A

6. m Vi<:w of" ti1(3- "".»%1i()OV'€, the instant contempt.

petitwray ciisniissed. V

fgk/_

Irxdexz yes / :10