Dokala Paparao vs Dokala Butchi Raju and Another

G. Bikshapathy, J.—This issue involved in both the civil revision petitions is one and the same, hence both the CRPs can be disposed of together.

The case depicts an ingenious method of violating the orders of this Court issued from time to time and thus reveals the way in which the process of this Court is being misused by the parties.

The case has a very long tale but to narrate only the relevant matter is traced out for the purpose of understanding the situation and initiating contempt proceedings under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act.

One Smt. D. Bangaramma filed suit in O.S. 121 of 1996 for permanent injunction. However, after the suit was transferred to the Sub-Court jurisdiction, it was renumbered as O.S. 45 of 1997. But, during the pendency of the suit she died and one Smt. Beela Parvathi was brought on record as legal representative of Smt. Dokala Bangaramma and at that point of time writ petitions were filed and ultimately in W.A. 1394 of 1997 dated 9-12-1997 a Division Bench of this Court passed orders to the effect that Smt. Beela Parvathi should take the crop on deposit of Rs. 25,000/- for that particular year and thereafter the leasehold rights should be auctioned between the parties every year. It is to be noted that the petitioner and respondents 1 and 2 are the parties in the writ appeal. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner and his family members filed suits in O.S.No. 45 of 1997 and O.S.No. 144 of 1996 for declaration of title and injunction in respect of the suit schedule properties and they are clubbed and tried together. Consequent on the directions of this Court, the lower Court appointed Advocate-Receivers for every year to conduct auction of leasehold rights in respect of the property in question. For the year 1998-99 no auction could take place even though the value of the crop was nearly Rs. 60,000/-. For the year 1999-2000 it was auctioned for Rs. 55,800/- wherein the highest bidder was Dokala Butchiraju, 1st respondent herein. For the years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 also the leasehold rights were auctioned between the parties and Dokala Butchi Raju was the highest bidder at Rs. 58,000/- and Rs. 70,500/- respectively. Out of the said amount, it is stated that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was paid by Butchiraju in respect of the crop for the year 1999-2000 and in respect of the crop for 2000-2001 a sum of Rs. 15,000/- was paid by the petitioner Mr. Dokala Papa Rao and the balance amount has not been deposited so far. With that scenario in view, when the crop was auctioned for the year 2001-2002 by the Advocate-Receiver, obstruction was made by Butchi Raju, the 1st respondent herein, and to come out of his clutches the Advocate-Receiver has filed Memo in LA. 530 of 2001 seeking police aid. The lower Court granted police aid against which he preferred Civil Miscellaneous Appeal 48 of 2001. In the said C.M.A. another LA. was filed seeking suspension of the order on which notice was given. At that point of time he approached this Court and filed the present civil revision petitions and obtained stay orders pending the revisions. When the crop was auctioned for 1999-2000, Mr. Papa Rao, petitioner herein, filed objection stating that he is a statutory tenant and therefore he should be allowed to cultivate the land in question. That objection was overruled by the trial Court against which he preferred C.M.A. 36 of 1999. The said C.M.A. was also dismissed by the lower appellate Court against which he filed Civil Revision Petition 4728 of 2001. This is how both the matters are landed before this Court.

The sequence of events as narrated above would clearly indicate that Dokala Papa Rao and Dokala Butchiraju are the main persons behind this litigation trying to obstruct the proper implementation of the orders of the Division Bench. When there is a specific direction by the Division Bench to the effect that the leasehold rights should be auctioned between the parties, neither Dokala Papa Rao nor Dokala Butchiraju can make any objections with regard to the alleged tenancy rights over the land in question. It is always subject to the result of the suits pending. On account of continued litigation, the suits could not be progressed even though there is a specific direction by the Division Bench of this Court to dispose of the suits by April 1998. In this view of the matter, the Court has to deal with the persons who are causing obstruction for proper implementation of the orders of this Court.

As Dokala Papa Rao and Dokala Butchiraju are the main persons who are involved in causing obstructions, prima facie this Court feels that they have violated the orders passed by a Division Bench of this Court and also causing various obstructions for disposal of the cases. Butchiraju admittedly was the highest bidder on three occasions but he paid only Rs. 10,000/- so far while the petitioner paid Rs. 15,000/-. Be that as it may, either the petitioner or Butchiraju are required to replenish the deficiency in the value of the crop for the last four years and in respect of three years for which the leasehold rights were auctioned only a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was paid by Dokala Papa Rao and Dokala Butchiraju jointly. Even for the present year 2001-2002, the highest bidder was Butchiraju for a sum of Rs. 70,500/- and no amount has been deposited so far on account of the various litigations ignited and initiated though on false and frivolous pleas. Admittedly the Receiver appointed by the Court in I.A. 530 of 2001 was required to auction the leasehold rights for the year 2001-2002 and the same was auctioned for Rs. 70,500/- for which Dokala Butchiraju is the highest bidder and Dokala Papa Rao has no manner of right to create any obstruction either for possession or enjoyment of the land. The lower Court has quite rightly granted the police protection in the interest of all the parties keeping in view the decision of the Division Bench in the writ appeal referred to above and against the grant of police protection, C.M.A. has been filed and no orders were passed in an interlocutory application. It has to be remembered that no application whatsoever either for appointment of receiver or for taking out the crop would lie in the mouth of either Dokala Papa Rao or Dokala Butchiraju inasmuch as the leasehold rights are to be necessarily auctioned. Therefore, any sort of obstruction which is being created by them from time to time as narrated above has to be treated as a contemptuous action on the part of Dokala Papa Rao and Dokala Butchiraju.

Thus, I do not find any merit in C.R.P. 5467 of 2001 to interfere with the order passed by the lower Court. Accordingly, it is dismissed with costs of Rs. 2,000/- payable to 2nd respondent Smt. Beela Parvathi. So also, C.R.P. 4728 of 2001 which was filed against the order passed by the learned single Judge dismissing the C.M.A. overruling the objection raised by Dokala Papa Rao has no legs to stand in the wake of the Division Bench decision. Accordingly, C.R.P. 4728 of 2001 is also dismissed with costs of Rs. 2,000/- payable to 2nd respondent Smt. Beela Parvathi.

But, that is not the end of me matter, Still this Court cannot digest the way in which these two persons have conducted themselves. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that Dokala Papa Rao is an advocate and in this litigation and prima fade his connivance is very much seen and perceived. Moreover, when he is a party to the Division Bench decision in the writ appeal, it is expected of him high responsibility and his duty is to implement the orders rather than violating the orders. Therefore, this Court feels that Dokala Papa Rao and Dokala Butchiraju have prima facie committed acts of contempt and this Court takes suo motu contempt proceedings against these two persons.

Registry shall register the contempt case and issue notice to Dokala Papa Rao and Dokala Butchiraju. They shall be present before this Court on 18th March, 2002 and explain as to why the contempt proceedings should not be proceeded with against them for deliberately and intentionally violating the orders of the Division Bench of this Court and also the orders passed by the lower Court from time to time and causing obstruction with the course of judicial proceedings as also administration of justice.

This Court also is of the opinion that the Bar Council should also be put on notice when the contempt proceedings are initiated against the Advocate, but decision in that regard will be taken after hearing Mr. Dokala Papa Rao.

Call the contempt case on 18-3-2002.