Rajesh M Anand vs Rakesh M Anand And Another

Puneet Gupta, J

Aggrieved by order dated 14.08.2021 passed by the court of learned Ist Additional District Judge, Jammu, whereby the court dismissed the contempt petition filed by the petitioner herein in the appeal, the present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The contention raised by the petitioner is that the learned court has not decided the contempt petition legally as the written arguments, additional photographs and the videographic evidence filed by the petitioner herein in the contempt petition clearly brings out the allegation against the respondent for commission of contempt of court. The precise submission is that the court did not comprehend the controversy in its right perspective and dismissed the contempt petition filed by the petitioner herein.

The learned counsels appearing for the respondents have argued that the present petition is not maintainable as the court after taking into consideration all the circumstances dismissed the contempt petition and no fault can be found in the same. The petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable against the order impugned in the present petition.

It appears from the record that the appellate court as interim measure directed the respondents to maintain status quo with regard to the title and further directed the respondent not to alienate or create any third party interest in the suit property. The appellate court while dismissing the contempt application held that it is for the contemnor to prove the contempt allegedly committed by the respondent No.2. It was further held that the petitioner did not lead any evidence in order to prove the contempt. It was specifically held in the impugned order that the petitioner failed to lead any evidence even to the extent that the respondent No.1 has alienated and created any third party interest in the suit property to the other respondents and that the photographic evidence cannot be the basis for proving the allegation.

The argument of the petitioner is that the court has erred in observing that the petitioner was required to prove that the contempt has been committed more so when the photographs and videography were placed on record by the petitioner. The court is not in agreement with the argument of the petitioner. The court has not made any such observation in the order which requires correction by this court. The contemnor has to prove that the opposite party has disobeyed the order passed by the court. Merely because some photographs are placed on record or videography record is filed that does not ipso facto prove the allegations leveled by the petitioner against the persons who are alleged to have committed the contempt of the court. In case the court is not satisfied with the mere material placed on the file by the petitioner without further proving the same, this court is not to substitute its opinion qua the satisfaction recorded by the court below.

The supervisory jurisdiction can be exercised by the court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India only on the ground that some manifest miscarriage of justice has taken place by virtue of the impugned order of the court or Tribunal and this principle echoes in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2015 Legal Eagle (SC) 135 (Radhey Sham and another v. Chhabi Nath and others).

The court is of the view that no exceptional circumstance is brought forth in the petition which requires interference from this court in the order impugned.

The petition is without merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.