- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9060-DB CCC No. 100160 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.100160 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SIDDARTH S/O. RAYAPPA KOUJALAGI, AGE: 07 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: GURLAPUR, TQ: MUDALAGI NOW RESIDING AT PATAGUNDI, TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591312. 2. PRANEET S/O. RAYAPPA KOUJALAGI, AGE: 05 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: GURLAPUR, TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI, NOW RESIDING AT PATAGUNDI, TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591312. (THE PLAINTIFFS NO.1 AND 2 ARE BEING MINORS HENCE THEY ARE R/BY THEIR MOTHER PLAINTIFF NO.3 AS THEIR M/GUARDIAN) 3. SMT. ANNAPURNA W/O. RAYAPPA KOUJALAGI, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK AND AGRICULTURE, R/O: GURLAPUR, TQ: MUDALAGI DIST: BELAGAVI-591312, NOW RESIDING AT PATAGUNDI Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9060-DB CCC No. 100160 of 2025 TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591312. …COMPLAINANTS (BY SRI. SANTOSH B.MALLIGAWAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. SHIVANAND APPAYYA BABALI, THE TAHASILDAR, MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591312. 2. SRI. REVAPPA S/O. SHIVAGOND KOUJALAGI, AGED ABOUT: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GURLAPUR, TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591312. 3. SMT. KALAWWA W/O. REVAPPA KOUJALAGI, AGED ABOUT: 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD, R/O: GURLAPUR, TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591312. 4. SRI. IRAPPA S/O. REVAPPA KOUJALAGI, AGED ABOUT: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GURLAPUR, TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591312. 5. SRI. RAYAPPA S/O. REVAPPA KOUJALAGI, AGED ABOUT: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GURLAPUR, TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591312. 6. SRI. SHIVABASU S/O. REVAPPA KOUJALAGI, AGED ABOUT: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GURLAPUR, TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591312. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9060-DB CCC No. 100160 of 2025 …ACCUSED 7. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, A.G. OFFICE, HCK DHARWAD. …PRO FORMA RESPONDENT (BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R7) THIS CONTEMPT PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, R/W. ARTICLE 215 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950, PRAYING TO INITIATE THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ACCUSED NO.1 FOR THE WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER DATED 16.12.2024 PASSED BY LEARNED I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GOKAK IN OS NO.775/2024, ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,. THIS CONTEMPT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9060-DB CCC No. 100160 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS) This contempt petition is filed under Article 215 of the Constitution of India R/W Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Court Act. The petitioners are seeking to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents for willful disobedience of order dated 16.12.2024 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gokak in OS No.775/2024. 2. On the previous occasion, we had requested the learned counsel for the petitioners to have his say as to how the contempt petition is maintainable before the High Court in respect of order passed by a Civil Judge in a original suit proceedings. 3. We find that a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rudraiah Vs. State of Karnataka and Others1 has held that it is a well settled principle of law 1 AIR 1982 KANT 182 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9060-DB CCC No. 100160 of 2025 that when there is special law and general law, the provisions of the special law prevail over the general law and when special procedure and special provision is contained in the Code of Civil Procedure in the form of Rule 2A of Order 39 for taking action for the disobedience of an order of injunction, the general law of contempt of Court cannot be invoked. Similarly is in the case of Food Corporation of India vs. Sukh Deo Prasad2, it was held that power exercised by a Court under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code is punitive in nature, akin to the power to punish for civil contempt under Contempt of Courts Act,1971. 4. In that view of the matter we are of the considered opinion that the petitioners are required to approach the Civil Court itself which had passed the order under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2. 2 (2009) 5 SCC 665 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9060-DB CCC No. 100160 of 2025 5. Consequently, we dismiss the contempt petition granting such liberty to the petitioners. Sd/- (R.DEVDAS) JUDGE Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE HMB CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7