Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 192 (KER)

Indiradevi v. O. V. Prasannan

2009-02-25

K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

body2009
Judgment:- Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner in this contempt application was the petitioner in W.P. (C) No.21824/2008. The said writ petition was one filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging Annexure-A1 order of the Sub Court, Ernakulam, disposing of I.A.No.2192/2008 in O.S.No.1002/2007 and I.A.No.2190/2008 in O.S.No.1003/2007. The judgment in the above writ petition is Annexure-A5. As per Annexure-A5, certain directions issued by the Sub Court in Annexure-A1 were modified and certain additional directions were also issued by this Court. The matter related to the release of a film. Alleging that in violation of the directions issued by this Court, the film has been released by the respondents, this contempt application has been filed. First respondent is the respondent in the Writ Petition and second respondent the Advocate Commissioner. 2. The learnedSingle Judge referred the matter under Rule 6 of the Contempt of Courts (High Court of Kerala) Rules for taking further proceedings in the matter, to the Division Bench. When the matter came up before us, we expressed a doubt whether the remedy of the petitioner is to move the Sub Court for appropriate action against the respondents or to pursue this contempt application. On this point, we heard Mr. P. Ravindran, learned senior counsel, who appeared for the petitioner. He took us through the various provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, including Sections 10 and 15. Reference was made to Rule 6 of the Contempt of Courts (High Court of Kerala) Rules also. The learned senior counsel submitted that if the direction of a subordinate court is disobeyed by a party, contempt application may lie under Section 10. He also relied on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Dinesh v. Pioneer Shopping Complex (P) Ltd. [2002(1) KLT 35] and submitted that the contempt application is maintainable. 3. Annexure-A1 is the order of the Sub Court. The said order has been modified by this Court by Annexure-A5 judgment. Now, the two suits in which the above common interim order is passed, are pending before the Sub Court. If the interim order issued by the Sub Court, as modified by this Court, is violated, the remedy of the petitioner is to move that court under CC(C) 1268/2008 3 Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code. Now, the two suits in which the above common interim order is passed, are pending before the Sub Court. If the interim order issued by the Sub Court, as modified by this Court, is violated, the remedy of the petitioner is to move that court under CC(C) 1268/2008 3 Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code. Going by the decision cited by the learned senior counsel in Dinesh v. Pioneer Shopping Complex (P) Ltd. (supra), such an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A can be filed before this Court also. But, there is an observation in para 5 of that judgment that contempt jurisdiction can be invoked not only for violation of the orders of this Court, but also for violation of the orders of any court subordinate to it. But, we notice that the said point is not one which arose for decision in that case. In other words, it is only obiter dicta. 4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has got an efficacious remedy in this case, by moving the Sub Court itself for appropriate reliefs against the violation of the interim order Annexure-A1, as modified by Annexure-A5 judgment. So, even assuming the contempt application is maintainable before this Court, we think, it is not expedient or necessary to invoke the contempt jurisdiction in such a matter. If such a liberal interpretation is given, as claimed by the petitioner, matters relating to disobedience of money decree, decree for specific performance of a contract for sale, etc., can also be brought up before this Court in contempt jurisdiction. The power of this Court to punish for contempt is to be invoked only sparingly. CC(C) 1268/2008 4 In that jurisdiction, this Court is the Prosecutor, Witness and Judge. It is settled legal position stated that the power to punish the contemnor has to be exercised only sparingly. So, even assuming contempt proceedings can be initiated against the respondents, we are not inclined to entertain this contempt application, as the petitioner has other efficacious remedies to redress her grievances. In the result, the contempt application is dismissed.