Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 571 (KAR)

MALA @ MALAWWA v. IRAPPA

2015-06-04

B.VEERAPPA

body2015
ORDER : The petitioners, who are the defendants filed the above Civil Revision Petition against the order dated 12.08.2013 on I.A. No.II made in O.S. No.20/2011, rejecting the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’). 2. Respondents Nos.1 to 5, who are the plaintiffs in the trial court, filed the suit for declaration that they are the owners of the suit schedule property, more fully described in paragraph No.2 of the plaint and also sought for an alternative prayer that if the Court comes to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have not become the full owners of suit land in view of M.E. Nos.363 and 399, then, it may kindly be declared that plaintiffs have become the owners of the suit land by way of adverse possession and consequently, for permanent injunction, contending that the plaintiffs are owners and in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit land. The defendants have no right, title or interest of whatsoever manner in the suit land. Prior to 1975, father of plaintiffs and father of defendants were forming a joint family. So, the then existed genealogy of the joint family is furnished in Schedule ‘A’, produced along with the plaint. The plaintiffs further contended that the father of plaintiffs late Bhimappa, and husband of defendant No.2 and father of defendant Nos.3 to 5, each had 1/3rd share, and late father of defendant No.1 had 1/3rd share in the suit land. Late Yallappa in his lifetime has gifted his 1/3rd share in the suit land to late Bhimappa Mang, the father of plaintiffs, in the year 1975, etc. and also contended that the entries in the revenue records have been mutated, entering the name of the plaintiffs into the records of right of suit lands, which has remained unchallenged and unrebutted. Late Bhimappa and subsequent to him, the plaintiffs are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit land for more than 33 years; so whatever the defendants had right over the suit land by implication of Section 27 of the Limitation Act, as the plaintiffs and their propositus, late Bhimappa, have enjoyed the suit land for more than 12 years, openly, publicly, without obstruction by anybody else to the full knowledge of the defendants and public at large. 3. 3. It is also contended that the defendants have filed Original Suit No.165/2000 against the plaintiffs for partition and separate possession before the learned Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Mudhol, and the said suit came to be decreed in favour of the plaintiffs, allotting shares to them. Therefore, the said decree passed in the said suit is untenable and unexecutable; so it has no legal consequence. Hence, the instant suit is filed without prejudice to the decree passed in O.S. No.165/2000 on 19.02.2002 by the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.D.n), Mudhol. Inpsite of the same, the decree passed in O.S. No.165/2000, the defendants kept silent. But, very recently, in the month of February 2011, they started to deny the ownership of the plaintiffs over the suit land. Therefore, plaintiffs are constrained to file the present suit for declaration and consequential relief of injunction against the defendants. The cause of action for the suit arose in the month of February 2011, etc. 4. The defendants filed the written statement and denied the entire plaint averments and specifically contended that previously, the defendants have filed a suit for partition and separate possession against the plaintiffs in respect of the suit land in O.S. No.165/2000 before the Civil Judge, Mudhol. The said suit came to be decreed allotting shares to the defendants. Thereafter, the plaintiffs preferred regular appeal before the Senior Civil Judge, Jamkhandi, sitting at Mudhol, in R.A. No.57/2002, which came to be dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court, which is final and conclusive. 5. The defendants also contended that they have filed F.D.P. No.5/2008 before the Civil Judge, Mudhol and the present plaintiffs, in order to cause delay and to put hurdles in the process of final decree being drawn in terms of the preliminary decree, filed this false and frivolous suit and they have also filed an application under Order XXI Rule 29 before the F.D.P. Court for staying the proceedings. Though the present plaintiffs knew they have no genuine case, inspite of it, filed this suit to harass the defendants. Hence, their act amounts to abuse of the process of the court and also putting hurdle in the administration of justice. The defendants further contended that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is barred under explanation IV of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Hence, their act amounts to abuse of the process of the court and also putting hurdle in the administration of justice. The defendants further contended that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is barred under explanation IV of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The matter is agitated under this suit was also in issue in O.S. No.165/2000. Hence, the suit is precluded under the principles of res judicata. 6. It is also specifically contended in para 16 of the written statement that, in para 8 of the plaint, the plaintiffs have became owners of the suit land by implication of provisions of law of adverse possession, is totally erroneous and misconception of law. There is no law as adverse possession in India. The concept of adverse possession springs out from law of limitation. Therefore, the defendants sought for dismissing the suit with compensatory cost of Rs.10,000/- and also contended that the plaintiffs are not the sole owners of the suit land and as the defendants have been held to be co-sharers in previous proceedings. The suit of the plaintiffs deserves to be dismissed with costs, etc. 7. After completion of pleadings, the defendants filed an application under Order VII rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for rejection of the plaint and specifically contended in the application that the plaintiffs have filed a frivolous suit, which does not disclose any cause of action. The plaintiffs have filed a false suit only to put a hurdle in the final decree proceeding, which is pending before the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn. ), Mudhol, in F.D.P. No.5/2008. The present suit is nothing but abuse of process of the Court. Therefore, it is an attempt to cause delay and defeat the fruits of decree in O.S. No.165/2000 and confirmed in R.A. No.57/2002. Therefore, sought for rejection of the plaint. 8. The said application, IA No.II, was resisted by the plaintiffs by filing objections. In the objections, plaintiffs denied the contents of affidavit filed along with the application, and they have not stated anything about the Original Suit, Regular Appeal or Final Decree Proceeding. It is only a general denial. 9. Therefore, sought for rejection of the plaint. 8. The said application, IA No.II, was resisted by the plaintiffs by filing objections. In the objections, plaintiffs denied the contents of affidavit filed along with the application, and they have not stated anything about the Original Suit, Regular Appeal or Final Decree Proceeding. It is only a general denial. 9. After considering the application and the objections, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mudhol, by order dated 12.08.2013, has rejected IA No.II filed under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, filed by the defendants. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis and perused the entire material on record. 11. Sri.Vivek Gramopadhye, learned counsel along with Sri.Sangram S. Kulkarni appearing for the petitioner has strenuously contended that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is illegal, perverse and without careful appreciation of the contents of the plaint and also reveals that there is no cause of action for filing the suit and therefore, the suit was not maintainable. He also contended that the trial Court failed to notice that the rights of the parties relating to the suit lands have already been discussed and decided in O.S. No.165/2000 and confirmed in RA No.57/2002, and the same cannot be re-agitated in a separate proceeding when by the judgment and decree in the earlier proceedings attained finality and the relief claimed by the present plaintiffs is unknown to law and the trial Court has not properly considered the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure. He also relied upon the judgment the of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hanumappa and others v Chikkannaiah and others reported in 2009 (1) KLJ 269 to support his contention. Therefore, he sought to set aside the impugned order passed by the trial Court. 12. Per contra, Sri.Girish A. Yadwad, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5 sought to justify the impugned order and specifically contended that even prior to filing of the earlier suit in O.S. No.165/2000, the present plaintiffs are and were in possession adverse to the interest of the defendants denying their ownership even though they are joint family members and therefore, the suit is maintainable. He also contended that when the suit is filed, it is the duty of the Court to proceed with the suit by giving opportunity to the plaintiffs to establish the case only after the trial and in the absence of any enquiry, the trial Court cannot reject the plaint. Therefore, he sought to justify the impugned order. Further he contended that while exercising power under the provisions of Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure by this Court, it cannot thrown out of the plaint at the inception without enquiry and without giving opportunity to the plaintiffs. He also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Gokuldas Images Pvt. Ltd., v. Axis Bank Limited reported in ILR 2013 KAR 1171 at Para No.23 it reads as under: 23. Being of this view I am satisfied the weaponry in the legal arsenal of the respondent Bank is not so lethal as to nonsuit the plaintiff at the threshold. The plaintiff deserves an opportunity of substantiating its contentions in the trial and that cannot be nipped in the bud. For these reasons, I am satisfied the appellant must succeed in its legal pursuit. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The matter is remanded to the trial Court to proceed from the stage where it had stopped, giving opportunity to both sides as is provided under law. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. 13. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the civil revision petition by confirming the order passed by the trial Court. 14. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced and perused the entire material on record as well as the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for both the parties. 15. The facts are not in dispute in the case that the suit schedule property in the present case was the subject matter of the suit in O.S. No.165/2000 which was filed by the present defendants/petitioners for partition and separate possession contending that the plaintiffs and others are the joint family members. 15. The facts are not in dispute in the case that the suit schedule property in the present case was the subject matter of the suit in O.S. No.165/2000 which was filed by the present defendants/petitioners for partition and separate possession contending that the plaintiffs and others are the joint family members. The said suit was resisted by the present plaintiffs who were the defendants by filing the written statement and denying the plaint averments made therein and after hearing both the parties, the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Mudhol by his judgment and decree dated 19.02.2002 has decreed the suit filed in O.S. No.165/2000 declaring that the plaintiffs and defendant No.7 therein are jointly entitled to 2/3rd share in the suit property and plaintiffs No.1 and 2 are entitled 1/3rd share and plaintiffs No.3 to 5 and defendant No.7 are entitled 1/3rd share in the suit land. 16. Admittedly, the said judgment and decree challenged by the present plaintiffs/respondents 1 to 5 in R.A. No.57/2002 was dismissed and in pursuance of the said judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, the present petitioners who were the defendants in the said suit, filed FDP No.5/2008 before the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Mudhol and it is pending for adjudication between the parties. The present plaintiffs/respondent Nos.1 to 5 are also contesting parties in the said FDP proceedings. When the things stood thus, the plaintiffs/respondents 1 to 5 filed suit in O.S.No.20/2011 declaration of title in respect of suit schedule property by way of adverse possession and consequential relief of permanent injunction contending that prior to 1975, the father of the present plaintiffs and defendants were forming a joint family and they are in possession of the suit property since more than 33 years and they have become the owners of the suit schedule property by implication of provisions of law of adverse possession in spite of decree passed in O.S. No.165/2000. It is relevant to extract para Nos.4, 7 and 8 of the plaint in O.S. No.20/2011 which reads as under: 4. Prior to 1975, father of present plaintiffs and father of defendants were forming a joint family. So, the then existed genealogy of the joint family is furnished in schedule ‘A’ produced along with the plaint which shall form the part and parcel of the plaint. 7. Prior to 1975, father of present plaintiffs and father of defendants were forming a joint family. So, the then existed genealogy of the joint family is furnished in schedule ‘A’ produced along with the plaint which shall form the part and parcel of the plaint. 7. Being the above true and prevailing facts, the defendants were filed a suit bearing O.S. No.165/2000 against the present plaintiffs for partition and separate possession before the Hon’ble Prl. Civil Judge(Jr.Dn.), Mudhol and said suit came to be decreed in favour of the plaintiffs of that suit (present defendants) allotting shares to them. So in view of the above said facts, the decree passed in said suit is untenable and unexecutable. So, it has no legal consequence. Hence, the instant suit is filed without prejudice to the decree passed in O.S.No.165/2000 dated 19.02.2002 by the Hon’ble Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Mudhol. 8. Even otherwise, if it is held that plaintiffs are not the exclusive owners of suit land, then also as stated above, as they have enjoyed the suit land for more than 33 years, they have become the owners of the suit land implication of provisions of law of adverse possession. In spite of it, after passing of decree in said O.S. No.165/2000 they kept silent but, very recently in the month of February, they started to deny the ownership of the plaintiffs over the suit land. Therefore, the plaintiffs are constrained to file the present suit for declaration and consequential relief of injunction against the defendants. 17. It is also worthwhile to mention here that the cause of action for the present suit arose in the month of February 2011. The defendants filed the written statement in O.S. No.20/2011 and denied the plaint averments and contended, in view of the earlier proceedings in O.S. No.165/2000 and R.A. No.57/2002 and FDP No.05/2008, the present suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable and there is no cause of action and therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit. The defendants filed the written statement in O.S. No.20/2011 and denied the plaint averments and contended, in view of the earlier proceedings in O.S. No.165/2000 and R.A. No.57/2002 and FDP No.05/2008, the present suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable and there is no cause of action and therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit. The trial Court passed the impugned order by rejecting I.A. No.2 under Order 7 Rule 11 r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, mainly relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Gokuldas Images Pvt., Ltd., V. M/s. Axis Bank Limited, Ahmedabad reported in ILR 2013 KAR 1171 even though the said decision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case and absolutely there is no reason to reject the application filed by the defendants. The learned Judge while rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure has not stated anything about the facts and circumstance as to how the suit is maintainable. By a clear reading of the plaint in the present case, the plaintiffs have not denied the earlier suit and the decree for effecting the partition between the members of the family and confirmed by the appellate Court in R.A. No.57/2002 and pendency of FDP No.5/2008. Therefore, the cause of action arose for the plaintiffs only in the month of February-2011 when the defendants denied the ownership over the suit properties cannot be accepted. The learned Civil Judge failed to notice that the rule of res judicata and the principle underlying under Order 2 Rule 2 C.P.C are equally applicable to suits for partition between co-owners as they are applicable to suits for partition amongst members of a joint family in the absence of fraud a prior decree for partition like any other decree operating as res judicata. In view of earlier decree in O.S. 165/2000 confirmed in R.A. No.57/2002 the present suit is barred by res judicata. Admittedly, the previous suit was filed in the year 2000 by the defendants who are the plaintiffs in the previous suit have denied the exclusive ownership of the present plaintiffs and asserted that they are the members of the joint family and therefore, they have filed the suit for partition and admittedly, the present plaintiffs are also party to the FDP No.5/2008 and participating in the proceedings. Therefore, there cannot be any cause of action in the year 2011 as alleged when the claim of exclusive ownership has been denied in the year 2000 itself and the plaintiffs cannot claim adverse possession against the co-owners of the joint family members. If a co-owner claims title to a joint property by adverse possession his possession must be exclusive and hostile in character as against the others so as to amount to ouster of those other co-sharers. The mere fact that the co-owner is found to be in sole occupation of a joint land is not to be regarded as proof that he has either excluded or ousted the other co-sharers from joint possession thereof. Though the plaintiffs have taken a specific contention in the present suit that they are in exclusive possession, the said claim has been negated in the previous suit and therefore, the plaintiffs have no cause of action. Unfortunately, the trial Court without application of mind to the plaint averments and the law declared by this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court time and again has proceeded to reject the application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure without assigning any reasons, which is contrary to law. It is worthwhile to extract order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. 11. It is worthwhile to extract order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. 11. Rejection of plaint.- The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:- (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in be plaint to be barred by any law; (e) Where it is not filed in duplicate; (f) Where the plaintiff fails to comply the provisions of rule 9: [provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature for correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp: paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff] 18. By a plain reading of the provision, makes it clear that the relevant facts which need to be looked into to decide the application I.A. No.2. But in the present case, the trial Court has proceeded to reject the application even without assigning any reasons only on the basis of the judgment of this Court in the case of Gokuldas Images Pvt., Ltd., referred to supra which is not at all applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. On that ground also the impugned order passed by the trial Court cannot be sustained in law. 19. On that ground also the impugned order passed by the trial Court cannot be sustained in law. 19. It is an admitted fact that in view of the decree passed in the earlier suits and the pendency of the FDP No.5/2008, the present plaintiffs having participated in the said FDP by filing their defence, they cannot file a fresh suit against the same members of the joint family on the imaginary cause of action when there is no cause of action and lost their defence as concurrently held by both the Courts below. While considering the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure the Apex Court in the case of T.Aravindandam V. Satyapal and another reported in AIR 1977 SC 2421 , has held in para No.5 of the judgment, which it reads as under: We have not the slightest hesitation in condemning the petitioner for the gross abuse of the process of the court repeatedly and unrepentantly resorted to. From the statement of the facts found in the judgment of the High Court, it is perfectly plain that the suit now pending before the First Munsif's Court, Bangalore, is a flagrant misuse of the mercies of the law in receiving plaints. The learned Munsif must remember that if on a meaningful-not formal-reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, be should exercise his power under O. VII r. 1 1 C.P.C. taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clever, drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order X C.P.C. An activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits. The trial courts would insist imperatively on examining the party at the first hearing so that bogus litigation can be shot down at the earliest stage. The Penal Code (Ch. XI) is also resourceful enough to meet such men, and must be triggered against them. In this case, the learned Judge to his cost realised what George Bernard Shaw remarked on the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi "It is dangerous to be too good." 20. The Penal Code (Ch. XI) is also resourceful enough to meet such men, and must be triggered against them. In this case, the learned Judge to his cost realised what George Bernard Shaw remarked on the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi "It is dangerous to be too good." 20. The Division Bench of This Court while considering the very provisions of Order 7, Rule 11(a) and (d) of Code of Civil Procedure in the case of Hanumappa and others Vs. Chikkannaiah and others reported in 2009(1) KLJ 269 (DB) has held that the averments in the plaint are material and the plea taken if any by the defendants in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage of the proceedings, which reads as under: 10. Though the plaint contains at para 8 a pleading with regard to the cause of action to the suit, the question is, whether a real cause of action has been set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated with a view to overcome the provisions contained in Rule 11 of Order 7 of the CPC. It is now settled position of law that, clever drafting creating illusions of cause of action, are not permitted in law and a clear right to sue, should be shown in the plaint. A reading of the plaint shows that, there is no real cause of action and what has been set out in the plaint is nothing but illusory. The plaintiffs having admitted that, their predecessors had sold the suit schedule properties in favour of the defendantsw and had parted with possession of the same and that the action of the Tahsildar to evict the defendants having been questioned in this Court and the writ petition having been allowed queashing the eviction notice, in the absence of clear averment regarding the date of on which the defendants were evicted from the suit schedule properties and the possession was recovered from them, as well as the claim that they are in possession and enjoyment of the properties, adverse to the right, title and interest of the defendants and have perfected their title by such enjoyment, is illusory. On conjoint and critical examination of the plaint, as discussed by us above, the plaint does not disclose a cause of action. 21. On conjoint and critical examination of the plaint, as discussed by us above, the plaint does not disclose a cause of action. 21. By reading of the entire plaint averments and in view of the earlier proceedings, it was culminated into the decree and on examination of the plaint, it does not disclose any cause of action. The cause of action alleged arose in the month of February 2011 when the defendants started to deny the ownership of the suit and it cannot be accepted for the simple reason that as long back as in the year 2002, the present defendants who are the plaintiffs in O.S. No.165/2000 have asserted the rights and contended that the present plaintiffs and the defendants are joint family members and accordingly, they have filed the suit for partition and it was decreed in the year 2002. Therefore, there cannot be any cause of action as alleged in the plaint by the plaintiffs. It is relevant to state at this stage that the conduct of the plaintiffs by filing exclusive suit claiming ownership by way of adverse possession, is nothing but daring ride on the Court. Such a conduct of the plaintiffs cannot be encouraged and this is nothing but abuse of process of the Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Advocate General V. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1980 SC 946 held as under: The 'game' proceeded further. Application after application were filed before the learned Single Judge, everyone of them designed to circumvent, defeat or nullify the effect of the orders of the Division Benches of the Calcutta High Court and the Patna High Court. The order of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court directing the respondents to furnish security in a sum of Rs. 1,55,000 was never complied with. The order of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court directing the respondents to furnish security of immovable property in a sum of Rs. 75,000 and to deposit cash or furnish bank guarantee in a sum of Rs. 50,000 was also never complied with. Instead, an order was obtained from the Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court restraining the State of Bihar from continuing the moneysuit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Palamau. 75,000 and to deposit cash or furnish bank guarantee in a sum of Rs. 50,000 was also never complied with. Instead, an order was obtained from the Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court restraining the State of Bihar from continuing the moneysuit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Palamau. When this order was set aside by the Division Bench, an attempt was made to circumvent all earlier orders by obtaining an order from the Single Judge that they may be allowed to deposit Rs. 60,000 in cash and permitted to remove the stock from the forest coupes. When the State of Bihar moved the learned Subordinate Judge, Palamau for a direction to auction the attached stock, the respondents moved an application on December 14, 1972, and obtained an order from the Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court staying the proceedings in the money suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Palamau. In considering the question whether the filing of the application dated December 14, 1972, amounts to a Contempt of Court the Court must take into account the whole course of the continuing contumacious conduct of the respondents from the beginning of the "game". Clearly, not a single application made to the Single Judge was bona fide. Every application was a daring 'raid' on the Court and each was an abuse of the process of the Court. The application dated December 14, 1972 praying that the proceedings in the money suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge should be stayed was made despite the fact that earlier, on January 10, 1972, the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court had expressly permitted the proceedings in the money suit to go on. The application of the respondents clearly showed that they were intent upon obstructing the due course of the proceedings in the money suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Palamau and to obstruct the administration of justice by abusing the process of the Court. 22. Hence, the conduct of the plaintiffs to file a suit again for declaration on imaginary cause of action would amounts to disobedience and to obstruct the administration of justice by abusing the process of Court. Filing suit after suit is nothing but daring ride on the Court and abuse the process of the Court and it would amount to criminal contempt of Court. Filing suit after suit is nothing but daring ride on the Court and abuse the process of the Court and it would amount to criminal contempt of Court. The same has been reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court in Vijaya Bank Employees Housing Co-Operative Society Ltd., v. Muneerappa reported in ILR 1990 KAR 4179 at paragraph 8 and it reads as under: 8. The filing of the suit cannot be got away with on the ground that there is no disobedience of any order. It is not mere disobedience, but as pointed out by the Supreme Court in the above ruling, even abuse of process of the Court would amount to contempt of Court within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act. Therefore, where the action of the accused is calculated to obstruct the due courses of a judicial proceeding and the administration of justice, it would amount to criminal contempt of Court. We do not have even a formal apology of the accused n the statement of objections. Therefore, we hold that the accused is guilty of contempt of Court. 23. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid reasons, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents who sought to justify the impugned order cannot be accepted and the impugned order passed by the trial Court is contrary to the very intention of the legislature while enacting the provisions of order 7 Rule 11 r/w Section 151 of CPC. 24. Hence, the civil revision petition is allowed with cost. The impugned order passed by the trial Court dated 12.08.2013 in rejecting I.A. No.II filed by the defendants is set aside by allowing I.A. No.II. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, though this Court is inclined to impose heavy cost, it desists from doing so and impose minimum cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) payable by the respondents/plaintiffs to the petitioners-defendants.