AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Reva Khetrapal, J.
IA No. 9243/2012 (for delay in filing the petition)
This is an application u/s 151 CPC filed by the petitioners for condonation of delay in filing the contempt petition. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the contempt petition is condoned.
The application stands disposed of.
CCP (O) 53/2012 in CS(OS) No. 2350/2010
On scrutinizing the petition it is revealed that the subject matter of the present contempt petition is the same as in CCP No. 35/2011, which is pending in this Court and is listed on 7th August, 2012. The petitioner in paragraph 10 of the present petition has stated as follows:
That the petitioner has not previously filed any such or similar petition in the present matter before this Hon''ble Court except CCP No. 35 of 2011, which is confined to the contumacious acts of the Contemnors related to the cause of action set out in paragraphs 9(i) and 9(ii) above and this CCP is with respect to the cause of action set out in paragraphs 9(i) to 9(iii) hereinabove.
Paragraph 9 of the petition referred to in paragraph 10, reproduced hereinabove, reads as follows:
9(i) The cause of action for filing the instant petition first arose when the defendant No. 2 allegedly entered into an agreement on 25th November, 2010 with M/s. Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. whereby the defendant No. 2 allegedly granted and assigned broadcasting right on its channel by way of a first exclusive premier of the impugned movie "KNOCK OUT" in spite of being aware of the present proceedings being initiated against them on 22nd November, 2010, being the date when they were served with the papers and proceedings of present matter.
(ii) Further, the cause of action again arose on 26th February, 2011, when in terms of the undertaking on 20th December, 2010, the said defendant companies and the Contemnors brought on record the names of the parties in whose favour they had allegedly created third party rights but remained silent about the first limb of the order dated 20th December, 2010 passed by this Hon''ble Court.
(iii) The cause of action further arose on 4th October, 2011 when the Contemnor No. 4 affirmed his affidavit filed in reply to the CCP No. 35 of 2011, and therein denied the undertaking given before this Hon''ble Court, which was categorically recorded in the order dated 20th December, 2010 inasmuch as such act of denial is itself contumacious and amounts to contempt of court.
Thus, the petitioner has himself stated that paragraphs 9(i) and 9(ii) are common to CCP No. 35/2011 and the present petition. According to the petitioner, the present contempt petition apart from paras 9(i) and 9(ii) relates to the cause of action set out in paragraphs 9(iii) only.
As per the petitioner himself paragraph 9(iii) relates to the affidavit dated 4th October, 2011 filed by the contemnor in CCP No. 35 of 2011. A perusal of CCP No. 35/2011 also shows that the affidavit referred to in paragraph 9(iii) dated 04.10.2011 was filed in reply to CCP No. 35/2011. Hence no fresh cause of action has accrued to the petitioner for the filing of the present contempt petition, the alleged contumacious conduct referred to in the present petition being subject matter of CCP No. 35/2011, which is pending. The present petition for the very same contumacious acts cannot therefore be entertained. The petition is accordingly dismissed.