Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2025:CGHC:15933-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA No. 54 of 2025 1 - Shanti Rani W/o Late Govindlal Bagga, aged about 80 years, R/o Belha, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, (L.Rs Of Govindlal Bagga (Dead)). 2 - Ashok Bagga S/o Late Govindlal Bagga, aged about 54 years, R/o Belha, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, (L.Rs Of Govindlal Bagga (Dead)). 3 - Jagdish Bagga S/o Late Govindlal Bagga, aged about 52 years, R/o Belha, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, (L.Rs Of Govindlal Bagga (Dead)). 4 - Pradeep Kumar Bagga S/o Late Govindlal Bagga, aged about 52 years, R/o Belha, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, (L.Rs Of Govindlal Bagga (Dead)). 5 - Rajesh Kumar Bagga S/o Late Govindlal Bagga, aged about 52 years, R/o Belha, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, (L.Rs Of Govindlal Bagga (Dead)). 6 - Sunita Rani Wd/o Late Kuldeep Upweja, aged about 63 years, R/o Fafadih, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, (L.Rs Of Govindlal Bagga (Dead)). 7 - Neelam Upweja W/o Surjitlal Upweja R/o Machli Market, Bhatapara, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 8 - Babita Arora W/o Jitendra Arora, aged about 48 yeas, W/o Jitendra Arora, R/o. C/o. Vishal Auto Centre, Transport Nagar, Korba (C.G.) Versus ... Appellants 2
Legal Reasoning
1 - Amarjeet Singh S/o Shri Mohar Singh, aged about 60 years, Occupation-Cloth Merchant R/o Ward No.-10, Bilha, Bilaspur, (C.G.). 2 - Ram Prakash S/o Late Keshar Singh, aged about 62 years, Occupation-Cloth Merchant R/o Ward No.-10, Bilha, Bilaspur, (C.G.). 3 - Smt. Bachchan Kour W/o Amarjeet Kour, aged about 58 years, R/o Ward No.-10, Bilha, Bilaspur, (C.G.). 4 - Smt. Shanti Rani Wd/o Late Shri Keshar Singh, aged about 74 years, R/o Ward No.-10, Bilha, Bilaspur, (C.G.) ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Senior Advocate along with Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia and Ms. Kajal Chandra, Advocate. For Respondents : Dr. N. K. Shukla, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Nitikesh Gupta, Ms. Priya Mishra and Mr. Dinesh Bole, Advocate. Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey J. Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, J. Judgment on Board Per, Rajani Dubey, Judge 04.04.2025 1. The appellants have filed the instant appeal under Section 19 of The Contempt of Courts, Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act, 1971’) questioning the order dated 21.01.2025 passed by the Learned Single Judge in Cont. No.18/2001 whereby the contempt petition has been closed and the respondents have been discharged from the contempt proceedings. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the father of the appellants namely Govind Lal Bagga had preferred a civil suit bearing Civil Suit No. 53A/1998 for possession over the disputed house and for mense profit. Vide judgment and decree dated 08.05.2000, passed by the learned Civil Court Bilaspur that 3 the civil suit of the appellants was allowed and the respondents were directed to hand over the vacant possession of the suit land against which the respondents preferred Civil Revision bearing CR No. 1233/2000 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh) and vide order dated 07.07.2000 the interim order was passed and status quo was directed to be maintained for a period of six weeks. On 23.03.2001 the appellants preferred an application in the said Civil Revision to initate contempt proceedings against the respondents for violation of interim order dated 07.07.2000. On 27.03.2001 again an interim order was passed in favour of the appellant with regard to the status quo. Thereafter, on 31.03.2001, the appellants have filed the Contempt Petition bearing Cont. Petition No. 18 of 2001 and vide order dated 21.01.2025 the said contempt petition has been closed and the respondents have been discharged from the contempt proceedings against which the present appeal has been preferred. 3. Heard both the counsel on the default being pointed out by the Registry that under Section 19 of Contempt of Courts Act this appeal may not maintainable. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that as per Hon’ble Court’s order passed in (2006) 5 SCC 399 in Midnapore People’s Coop. Bank Ltd. And others v. Chunilal Nanda And others from para 11 exceptions (III) (IV) that this appeal is maintainable before this Bench and it is clear from the impugned order dated 21.01.2025 that the learned Single Bench failed to appreciate that mere dismissal of the Civil Revision cannot discharge the respondents from their contemnors conduct for willful violating the interim order passed in the said Civil Revision and the learned Single Bench failed to consider the fact that an additional submission has been filed in Contempt Petition under affidavit of respondent No. 1. The learned Single Bench has taken wrong view that on dismissal of the Civil Revision an interim order passed in said Revision 4 goes away. The apology tendered at a belated stage cannot be deemed to be bona fide and the apology tendered could not be accepted as a matter of course and it is not binding upon the Court. The learned counsel for the appellants places reliance in the matter of BalwantbhaiSombhai Bhandari v. HiralalSomabhai Contractor (deceased) represented by LRs and others reported in (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1139. 5. So, the impugned judgment and order dated 21.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Bench in Contempt Petition No. 18/2001 (Annexure A-1) in the case of Shanti Rani and others Vs. Amarjeet Singh and Ors. is liable to be set aside. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents strongly and vehemently oppose the prayer of the learned counsel for the appellants and submits that this appeal is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the respondents also places reliance in the matter of Midnapore People’s Coop. Bank Ltd. (supra) & Ajay Kumar Bhalla (supra) and in this Court’s order dated 20.11.2024 passed in MA No. 124/2024. 7. Heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 8. This Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellants against the order dated 21.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in contempt petition No. 18/2001 whereby the learned Single Judge discharged the respondents/contemnors from the contempt proceedings. 9. The learned Single Judge observed in paras 10 & 11 as under which is reproduced herein for ready reference:- “10. Thus , in view of the fact that the Civil Revision No. 1233/2000, in which the interim orders dated 07.07.2000 and the 27.03.2001 were passed wilful Respondents/Contemnors and disobedience/non-compliance of these orders that the present Contempt Petition has been filed, already stood dismissed favour is of for in it 5 for want of prosecution on 02.02.2015 and further keeping in view the fact that the Contempt Petitioners have already pursuant to the decree dated 08.05.2000 levied execution way back on 10.07.2000 in Civil Execution Case No. 231- A/2000 and though warrants of possession have been directed to be issued from time to time, but the Contempt Petitioners did not proceed to follow and comply with the orders of the Court and the said execution case ultimately dismissed by the executing Court by Order dated 27.02.2018 and the restoration application filed by the Contempt Petitioner in respect of the said order has also been dismissed by the Civil Court by its Order dated 17.03.2020 which is the subject matter of challenge in W.P. (227) No. 509/2020 pending before this Court, I am of the view that no case as such for contempt of court is made out at present as wilful disobedience/non-compliance of the aforesaid orders of this Court has not been stated and established, more particularly when the Contempt Petitioners have already levied the execution. 11. In that view of the matter, it would not be appropriate to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court which even otherwise has to be sparingly exercised. Accordingly the Contempt Petition is closed and the Respondents/Claimants stand discharged from the contempt proceeding.” 10. This Court observed in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 124/2024 in order dated 20.11.2024 held under paras 9, 10 & 11 which reads as under:- “9. The Supreme Court in the matter of Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. (supra) held thus at para 11: 11. The position emerging from these decisions, in regard to appeals against orders in contempt proceedings may be summarized thus: I. An appeal under Section 19 is maintainable only against an order or decision of the High Court passed in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt, that is, an order imposing punishment for contempt. II. Neither an order declining to initiate proceedings for contempt, nor an order initiating proceedings for contempt nor an order dropping the proceedings for contempt nor an order acquitting or exonerating the contemnor, is appealable under Section 1 of the CC Act. In special circumstances, they may be open to challenge under Article 136 of the Constitution. III. In a proceeding for contempt, the High Court can decide whether any contempt of court has been committed, and if so, what should be the punishment and matters incidental thereto. In such a proceeding, it is not appropriate to adjudicate or decide any issue relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties. 6 IV. Any direction issued or decision made by the High Court on the merits of a dispute, between the parties, will not be in the exercise of ‘jurisdiction to punish for contempt’ and therefore, not appealable under Section 19 of CC Act. The only exception is where such direction or decision is incidental to or inextricably connected with the order punishing for contempt, in which event the appeal under Section 19 of the Act, can also encompass the incidental or inextricably connected directions. V. If the High Court, for whatsoever reason, decides an issue or makes any direction, relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties, in a contempt proceedings, the aggrieved person is not without remedy. Such an order is open to challenge in an intra-court appeal ( if the order was of a learned Single Judge and there is a provision for an intra-court appeal), or by seeking special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India ( in other cases). The first point is answered accordingly. 10. The judgment rendered in the matter of Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. (supra) has been relied in Ajay Kumar Bhalla (supra) and observed at para 14 that in view of the decision rendered in Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. (supra), it is a settled principle that an appeal under Section 19 lies only against an order imposing punishment for contempt. 11. In view of the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. (supra) & Ajay Kumar Bhalla (supra), it is held that the appeal under Section 19 of the Act, 1971, is not maintainable, however, as observed by the Supreme Court, if the aggrieved person is not without remedy such an order is open to challenge in an intra-court appeal (if the order was of a learned Single Judge and there is a provision for an intra-court appeal), the applicant herein is at liberty to challenge the order passed by the learned Contempt Court questioning the same in an intra- court appeal, if so advised.”
Decision
11. In the light of above cited judgments, this instant appeal is also disposed of with the observation and liberty as described by this Court in para 11 of the impugned judgment dated 20.11.2024. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE JUDGE U. K. Raju