- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16579-DB CCC No. 452 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND CCC NO. 452 OF 2025 (CIVIL) BETWEEN: 1. BADAKAPPA S/O. RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/O JADDIHALLI VILLAGE SORABA TALUK SHIMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 419 …COMPLAINANT (BY SRI. VEERENDRA R. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. TUKARAMA B. NAIK S/O LATE B. BANGARAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. 2. SRI. VEERESHAPPA S/O OF LATE KADERA KRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. 3. SRI. VINAYAKA S/O OF LATE KADERA ERAPPA. AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 4. SRI. CHANDRAPPA S/O OF LATE KADERA MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. 5. SRI. GANESHPPA S/O OF LATE KADERA DANAPPA. AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS …ACCUSED Digitally signed by CHAITHRA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16579-DB CCC No. 452 of 2025 THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF CONSTITUTIONS OF INDIA AND R/W SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, PRAYING TO INITIATE, THE CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED NO.1 TO 5 HEREIN IN VIEW OF WILLFULLY DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDERS DATED 11.12.2023 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP NO.16708/2021(LR) AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA) Heard learned advocate Mr. Veerendra R. Patil for the complainant-petitioner. 2. In the facts of the case, there are two clear reasons why this court would not be entertaining the present contempt petition. Firstly, the order complained of, for its breach is dated 11.12.2023. The contempt petition is filed on 15.04.2025, which is evidently filed beyond one year. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16579-DB CCC No. 452 of 2025 3. Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 reads as under, "20. Limitation for actions for contempt:- No court shall initiate any proceedings of contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed." 4. In view of the above statutory provision in the Act, action in contempt could be initiated only within one year from the date of cause of action, that is when the contempt is said to have been committed. The present petition is barred as above. The embargo of time would operate. 4.1 In the second place, the order is admittedly an interim order passed in the pending Writ Petition No.16708 of 2021. Learned Single Judge has directed the parties to maintain status-quo which is the extension of interim order which was passed by the Land Tribunal, the judgment of which has been challenged before learned Single Judge. 5. Since the order is interim order, no rights are finally crystallized for any of the parties. It will be open for the petitioner to work out his rights and remedies in the proceedings of the writ petition before the court concern. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16579-DB CCC No. 452 of 2025 6. In light of the above two reasons which are independent themselves, the court is not persuaded to entertain the contempt petition. 7. The contempt petition is accordingly dismissed. In view of dismissal of the petition, the interlocutory application would not survive and it stands accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE CR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4