Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 208 (KAR)

Karappan Gownder v. Mayappa

2021-02-03

ARAVIND KUMAR, PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

body2021
ORDER : Aravind Kumar, J. 1. This proceeding has been initiated by the petitioner in W.P. No. 13628/2018 alleging there has been willful disobedience of the order dated 19.04.2018 passed in said writ petition by the respondent herein. 2. We have heard Sri. A.G. Sridhar, learned counsel appearing for complainant and Sri. N.K. Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for respondent. Perused the records. 3. In this matter, charge came to be framed vide order dated 19.07.2019 and on account of accused/contemnor not pleading guilty, it was ordered to record the evidence and was listed for recording of the evidence. Subsequently, on 24.01.2020 evidence of C.W.1 and C.W.2 was recorded. On 18.03.2020 accused was present before the court and learned counsel appearing for accused/contemnor filed an affidavit of accused/contemnor whereunder accused has narrated the sequential events which lead to disobedience of the order dated 19.04.2018 passed in W.P. No. 13628/2018, whereunder order impugned therein dated 06.03.2018 (Annexure-A), which had been passed by the Deputy Commissioner confirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner under which the land in question was ordered to be restored to fourth respondent therein, came to be stayed. 4. It is an undisputed fact that writ petition filed by the petitioner i.e., W.P. No. 13628/2018 has since been allowed vide order dated 08.11.2019 and same is said to have attained finality. In the said writ petition, interim order dated 19.04.2018 came to be passed, which is alleged to have been willfully disobeyed by the respondent herein. In the midst of trial, as noticed hereinabove, accused/contemnor has filed an affidavit tendering unconditional apology. It has been stated by the accused/contemnor in the affidavit dated 18.03.2020 to the following effect : "2. I humbly submit that xxxxx 1971. I submit after receipt of the notice of this Petition, I met my advocate and explained to him the circumstances under which I was misled by my known people in the village to go over near the land as both the Authorities had passed orders in my favour and I can seek Police help. At that point of time I was unaware of the consequences and was swayed away by their misgivings which has resulted in the present situation. At that point of time I was unaware of the consequences and was swayed away by their misgivings which has resulted in the present situation. In fact there was lot of miscommunication between me and my Advocate even while giving the details of the situation regarding the possession of the land prevailing at the spot when drafting the Objections to this Petition which has resulted in me admitting of having possession of the land when the things are otherwise. My Application before the Assistant Commissioner itself was for restoration of possession. I was appraised of my follies by my present counsel and only then I realized the greatest mistake I had committed in pursuing this Petition. I deeply regret for all the above happenings. I had no intention to disregard the Orders of this Hon'ble Court. I am a villager and blindly believed certain persons who were guiding me in the case having not understanding the consequences. From these unpleasant happenings I have learnt my life's lesson. I hereby tender my unconditional apology for the inconvenience caused to this Hon'ble Court. I have respect and reference to the Orders passed by this Hon'ble Court. I had no intention to over reach the order passed by this Hon'ble Court." 5. Learned counsel appearing for accused/contemnor has prayed for accepting the affidavit on such terms as deemed fit by this court and has prayed for closure of this proceedings or dropping of the present contempt proceedings. 6. Sri. A.G. Sridhar, learned counsel appearing for complainant has contended that accused/contemnor had violated the order of learned Single Judge by trespassing into the property and dismantling the electrical fittings and he had taken away the coconuts, which was lying in the land in question and had also caused enormous financial loss to the complainant and as such he prays for suitable orders being passed. In other words, the sum and substance of complainant's grievance is by virtue of changed circumstances namely, W.P. No. 13628/2018, which had been filed by the complainant having been allowed and said order having attained finality and complainant having continued in possession of the property in question, he has prayed for suitable orders being passed. In other words, complainant seems to be seeking for compensation being awarded for the loss that has been caused to the complainant. 7. Sri. In other words, complainant seems to be seeking for compensation being awarded for the loss that has been caused to the complainant. 7. Sri. N.K. Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for second respondent has submitted that notwithstanding the affidavit dated 18.03.2020 filed by the accused/contemnor, he is ready and willing to pay the complainant such reasonable amount, as may be fixed by this court. 8. In the light of aforestated facts, we are of the considered view that even if the present proceedings is taken to its logical end, it would not serve any purpose and in view of the fact that petitioner is already in possession of the property and respondent having admitted that petitioner/complainant is in possession of the same and has expressed remorse for his acts, it would be apt and appropriate to give a quietus to this proceedings, particularly in the background of accused/contemnor also having tendered unconditional apology. However, accused/contemnor cannot be absolved of his acts particularly when order of passed in W.P. No. 13628/2018 dated 19.04.2018 having been willfully disobeyed by him and in order to off-set the loss that has been caused to the complainant, we are of the considered view that ends of justice would be met if accused/contemnor is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant within an outer limit of one (1) week. 9. Learned counsel appearing for respondent also undertakes that amount as ordered hereinabove would be paid to the complainant within one (1) week from today. His submission and undertaking is placed on record. In that view of the matter, we close the contempt proceedings with a liberty to the complainant to revive this contempt petition in the event of amount as ordered by this court and agreed to be paid by the respondent is not being paid or deposited. In view of the aforestated facts, contempt proceedings stands closed.