- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3398-DB CCC No. 200107 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.200107 OF 2025 BETWEEN: REVANASIDDAYYA S/O BASAYYA CHINCHOLI, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KATAMDEVARAHALLI, TQ: CHITTAPUR, DIST: KALABURAGI, KATAMDEVARAHALLI – 585 211. …COMPLAINANT (BY SRI RAVINDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR COMPLAINANT) AND: 1. SRI AADDARU SRINIVASULU AGE ABOUT: 45 YEARS, THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KALABURAGI DISTRICT, KALABURAGI -585 101. 2. SRI JAGADEVAPPA PALA, AGE ABOUT: 47 YEARS, THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, KALAGI, TQ: CHITTAPUR, DIST: KALABURAGI, KALAGI – 585 312. Digitally signed by BASALINGAPPA SHIVARAJ DHUTTARGAON Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3398-DB CCC No. 200107 of 2025 3. SRI CHETAN BIDIRI, AGE ABOUT: 40 YEARS, THE POLICE INSPECTOR MUDBOOL POLICE STATION, MUDBOOL, TQ: CHITTAPUR, MUDBOOL – 585 312. 4. SHARAN REDDY S/O GURUNATH REDDY, AGE ABOUT: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: VENKATESH NAGAR, NEAR WATER TANK, KALABURAGI ROAD, CHITTAPUR, DIST: KALABURAGI, CHITTAPUR – 5852 11. 5. SRI. RAMU S/O KASHAPPA BHOVI, AGE ABOUT: 40 YEARS, R/O: KATAMDEVARAHALLI, TQ: CHITTAPUR, DIST: KALABURAGI, KATAMDEVARAHALLI – 585 211. …ACCUSED (BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR TENGLI, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; R4 & R5 ARE SERVED) THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 R/W ARTICLE 215 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE ORDERS OR DIRECTIONS, BY PUNISHING THE ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 5 FOR VIOLATING THE ORDERS/JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN O.S.NO.48/2009 DATED 27.03.2014, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF CONTEMPT - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3398-DB CCC No. 200107 of 2025 OF COURTS ACT, 1971 AND THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WITH COST. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ AND HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) The petitioner/complainant has preferred this petition for punishing accused Nos.1 to 5 for violating the judgment and decree passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Chittapur in O.S.No.48/2009 dated 27.03.2014. 2. Petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.48/2009 against respondent No.4 and another on the file of the Court of Civil Judge at Chittapur for the relief of declaration, permanent injunction and rectification of revenue records in respect of land bearing Sy.No.21/1, measuring 06 acres 14 guntas of Katamdevarhalli, in Chittapur Taluk (for short, ‘the suit property’). The said suit came to be - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3398-DB CCC No. 200107 of 2025 decreed by the Civil Court on 27.03.2014 holding that the petitioner/plaintiff is the absolute owner and in possession of the suit property. The sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 was declared to be null and void and not binding on the plaintiff to the extent of his land and further, the defendants were restrained by way of permanent injunction from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the petitioner/plaintiff. 3. The instant petition alleging violation of the said decree passed by the Civil Court is preferred, wherein it is stated that respondent Nos.4 and 5 inspite of the said injunction granted in favour of the petitioner herein, has continued to interfere with the peaceful possession of plaintiff’s land. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that inspite of a complaint having been lodged with the Police, they have not taken any action, and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3398-DB CCC No. 200107 of 2025 therefore, he has impleaded them as respondent Nos.1 to 3 in this petition. 5. The decree was passed by the Civil Court on 27.03.2014. According to the plaintiff, respondent Nos.4 and 5 have interfered with the peaceful possession of his property and therefore, he lodged a complaint with the Police, but no action was taken. It is contended that all the respondents have violated the decree passed by the Civil Court wherein permanent injunction was granted in his favour. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed that under Order XXI Rule 32 of CPC, if the party against whom an injunction order is passed by the Civil Court, violates such order, then remedy is available by approaching the Civil Court seeking necessary relief for the disobedience of the said order. However, relying on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bank of Baroda Vs. Sadruddin Hasan Daya and Another reported in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3398-DB CCC No. 200107 of 2025 (2004) 1 SCC 360, he contended that such violation would also amount to contempt of Court as held by the Apex Court. 7. We have given our anxious consideration to the decision of the Apex Court in the above case. 8. In the aforementioned decision, there was an undertaking given to the Apex Court and a consent decree was passed. Since there was willful breach of the undertaking given to the Court, in that circumstances, the Apex Court held that the same amounts to civil contempt within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and execution of the decree have no bearing on the contempt committed. 9. In the case on hand, if respondent Nos.4 and 5 have violated the decree passed, as alleged, remedy is available to the petitioner under Order XXI Rule 32 of CPC. When such is the case, instant petition seeking to initiate contempt proceedings cannot be entertained. Further, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3398-DB CCC No. 200107 of 2025 there is no direction whatsoever against respondent Nos.1 to 3, to array them as parties to this proceeding. Petition is mis-conceived and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE Sd/- (K S HEMALEKHA) JUDGE BL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10 CT:NI