- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1914-DB CRL.CCC No. 100003 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 100003 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SRI. T.R. SHADAKSHARAPPA, S/O. RUDRAPPA, AGE. 71 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. TOOLADAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ. KOTTUR, DIST. VIJAYANAGAR-583134. …COMPLAINANT (BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. R. THIPPESWAMY , S/O. LATE R. DODDA BASAPPA, AGE. 73 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, 2. SRI. R. BASAPPA, S/O. LATE R. DODDA BASAPPA, AGE. 80 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, BOTH ARE R/O. TOOLADAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ. KOTTUR, DIST. VIJAYANAGAR-583134. …ACCUSED (BY SRI. LAXMAN T. MANTAGANI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) THIS CRIMINAL C.C.C IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W. SECTION 15(2), SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT 1971, PRAYING THAT THE CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS MAY BE INITIATED AGAINST Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA Date: 2025.02.20 11:24:16 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1914-DB CRL.CCC No. 100003 of 2024 THE ACCUSED PERSONS NO.1 AND 2 FOR DISREGARDING AND DISOBEYING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.01.2012 IN O.S. NO.85/2005 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE KUDLIGI, CONFIRMED IN R.A. NO.15/2012 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUDLIGI AND FURTHER CONFIRMED BY THE SINGLE JUDGE OF THE HON’BLE COURT BY THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.06.2022 IN R.S.A. NO.100091/2015, VIDE ANNEXURE-B, C AND E RESPECTIVELY AND METE OUT PUNISHMENT UNDER THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, 1971 AND APPROPRIATE ORDERS MAY BE PASSED UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE INCLUDING AN EXEMPLARY COST ON THE ACCUSED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This Criminal Contempt Petition is filed against the respondent Nos.1 and 2/accused who have filed a suit in O.S.No.85/2005, on the file of learned Civil Judge, Kudligi, against the complainant for the relief of declaration, to declare that the respondents are the absolute owners of the suit schedule properties and for a permanent injunction. 2. The said suit was partly decreed by the judgment and decree dated 20.01.2012 and the respondents were - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1914-DB CRL.CCC No. 100003 of 2024 declared as owners and in possession of the suit schedule item No.2 property bearing land Survey No.967/C, measuring 0.73 cents and the suit regarding item No.1, Survey No.965/B, measuring 1 acre 26 guntas, was dismissed. 3. Against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.85/2005, the respondents preferred an appeal in R.A.No.15/2012, on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Kudligi. The said appeal came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 15.09.2014. 4. The respondents aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.15/2012, preferred the Regular Second Appeal in RSA.No.100091/2015 before this Court. In the said Regular Second Appeal, the respondents have filed an application seeking an ad interim order of temporary injunction. The said application was dismissed vide order dated 23.03.2018 and the Regular Second Appeal was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 28.06.2022. Thus, the judgment and decree passed in - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1914-DB CRL.CCC No. 100003 of 2024 O.S.No.85/2005 regarding item No.1 – Survey No.965/B has attained the finality. 5. After the dismissal of the said Regular Second Appeal, the respondents filed one more suit in O.S.No.380/2022 before the learned Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Kudligi, against the complainant for the relief of perpetual injunction regarding Survey No.965/B. The respondents filed an application seeking an order of temporary injunction against the complainant. The trial Court issued a notice to the complainant. 6. It is contended that respondents knowing fully well that they have no right, title and interest regarding the Survey No.965/B, filed a suit in O.S.No.380/2022, though the finding recorded in the said O.S.No.85/2005 has attained the finality. The filing of a suit in O.S.No.380/2022 by the respondents is a clear contempt of Court and abuse of the process of law. 7. It is contended that, the complainant filed a civil contempt of Court in Civil Contempt Petition - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1914-DB CRL.CCC No. 100003 of 2024 No.100279/2023 before this Court. This Court vide order dated 04.07.2024, disposed of the contempt petition, holding that it does not amount to civil contempt as defined under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and filing of suit after the suit or application after application would fall under Section 2(c) of the Act. Hence, the complainant prays to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents. 8. It is contended that the learned Advocate General by order dated 30.10.2024, granted the consent. 9. The respondents have filed a statement of objections admitting regarding filing of the suit in O.S.No.85/2005 and disposal of the said suit regarding Survey No.965/B, measuring 1 acre 26 guntas and the same was confirmed by this Court in the Regular Second Appeal in RSA.No.100091/2015, vide judgment dated 28.06.2022 and also admitted regarding the filing of subsequent suit in O.S.No.380/2022. It is contended that, the complainant sold the property, and lost his title and - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1914-DB CRL.CCC No. 100003 of 2024 interest over the property and by suppressing the material and factual position, filed this contempt petition. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents filed an affidavit of respondent No.2 dated 29.01.2025, wherein it is stated that the complainant has filed the contempt proceedings against the respondents alleging that, they had filed the suit in O.S.No.85/2005 seeking the relief of declaration and injunction. The said suit came to be dismissed and confirmed by this Court in RSA.No.100091/2015, which amounts to abuse of the process of law. It is stated that, upon verification of the documents, it was found that the complainant had sold the property in question as early as on 03.04.1971 to one Siddaiah, son of Nagarkatti Kotrappa. However, despite this sale, the complainant in collusion with revenue authorities allegedly managed to have his name inserted in the revenue records instead of the rightful name of respondent No.2. Under a bona fide belief that the correction in the revenue records amounts to - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1914-DB CRL.CCC No. 100003 of 2024 misrepresentation by the complainant, the accused Nos.1 and 2/respondents being illiterate and unaware of the legal consequences, mistakenly filed a fresh suit seeking an injunction. However, upon being informed that, filing successive suit on the same cause of action amounts to an abuse of the process of law, the respondents have withdrew the suit by filing a memo not pressing the same, leading to its dismissal. 11. It is stated that, the respondents sincerely and unconditionally apologize to this Court for filing a fresh suit which was done due to a lack of legal awareness and under a mistaken impression and it is stated that they have the highest regard for the dignity and authority of the Court. Hence, prays to accept the unconditional apology and discharge the respondents from the contempt proceedings. 12. Heard the learned counsel for the complainant and the learned counsel for the respondents/accused Nos.1 and 2. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1914-DB CRL.CCC No. 100003 of 2024 13. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that, the respondents knowing fully well that they have suffered a decree in O.S.No.85/2005 and despite dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.85/2005, filed another suit on the same cause of action. The action of the respondents in filing the successive suit amounts to abuse of the process of law and it amounts to criminal contempt. Hence, he prays to impose heavy fine on the respondents. 14. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents due to lack of legal knowledge, have filed a subsequent suit and he submits that the respondents have filed a memo for withdrawal of the said suit and the said suit was withdrawn and the respondents have sought an unconditional apology. Hence, he prays to drop the contempt proceedings and discharge them. 15. Perused the records and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1914-DB CRL.CCC No. 100003 of 2024 16. It is not in dispute that the respondents have filed suit in O.S.No.85/2005 for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction in respect of two landed properties. The said suit was partly decreed regarding the land bearing Survey No.967/C and the trial Court dismissed the suit regarding item No.1 i.e., Survey No.965/B vide judgment dated 20.01.2012. Against the dismissal of the suit regarding the Survey No.965/B, the respondents have filed an appeal in R.A.No.15/2012. The said appeal was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 15.09.2014. The respondents aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.15/2012, preferred a Regular Second Appeal in RSA.No.100091/2015. This Court vide judgment dated 28.06.2022, dismissed the second appeal and confirmed the dismissal of suit regarding the Survey No.965/B. 17. After disposal of the Regular Second Appeal, the respondents have filed a suit in O.S.No.380/2022 against the complainant for a perpetual injunction regarding - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1914-DB CRL.CCC No. 100003 of 2024 Survey No.965/B. The respondents were fully aware of the dismissal of suit in O.S.No.85/2005 in respect of Survey No.965/B, despite which, they have filed suit in O.S.No.380/2022. Thus, it amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court and it is a clear case of criminal contempt as per Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 18. The respondents have filed an affidavit, seeking unconditional apology and it is stated that the respondents are illiterate and under a bona fide belief that the correction in the revenue records amounts to misrepresentation by the complainant and being unaware of the legal consequences, mistakenly they have filed a fresh suit seeking perpetual injunction. As the respondents have sought an unconditional apology, we are of the opinion that the respondents are liable to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1914-DB CRL.CCC No. 100003 of 2024 19. In view of the above discussion, we proceed to pass the following : ORDER (i) The Contempt Petition is disposed of. (ii) The respondents/accused are directed to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the complainant is entitled to recover the same by due process of law. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE bk/ LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 35