AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Apurba Sinha Ray, J. :-
The backdrop of this contempt application is that by order dated 16.04.2021 the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, 3 Court, Purba Medinipur in Title Suit No. 131 of 2011 allowed the plaintiff’s petition for repairing the suit premises. Against such an order dated 16.04.2021 the present petitioner of the contempt application filed one civil revisional application being CO 353 of 2022. By order dated 17.03.2022, the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench directed to maintain status quo in respect of the suit premises until further order. The allegations of the contemnor is that in spite of specific direction contained in the order dated 17.03.2022 passed in CO 353 of 2022, the opposite party no. 1 carried out the repairing work in the suit premises and thereby violated the order of the Hon’ble Court. In this regard, on 01.05.2022 he lodged a GD before the local jurisdictional police station and subsequently this contempt application was filed. After the appearance of the alleged contemnor he filed an affidavit in opposition and from such affidavit in opposition it does not appear that allegations made by the petitioner were specifically denied by the alleged contemnor. If the opposite party fails to rebut the specific allegation brought against him by the petitioner, the allegation shall be deemed to have been admitted by the opposite party no. 1.
In support of his contention Mr. Krishna Das Poddar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, referred to two judgments such as Thangam and Ors. Vs. Navamani Ammal reported in 2024 INSC 164, C. Elumalai and Ors. Vs. A.G.L. Irudayaraj and Anr. reported in (2009) 4 SCC 213.
The learned counsel appearing for the alleged contemnor has stated that the opposite party no .1 did not commit any wilful disobedience or violation of the Court’s order. According to him the opposite party no. 1 has specifically denied the allegation brought against him. It is not correct to say that petitioner’s allegation was not specifically denied by the alleged contemnor no. 1.
Mr. Dey has submitted that the photographs annexed to the contempt application merely purported to depict the condition of the suit property. They do not disclose the date on which the alleged repairing work was undertaken, the person who undertook such work or that such work was carried out after the order dated 17.03.2022. According to him such disputed questions cannot properly be adjudicated by undertaking a roving enquiry in contempt jurisdiction. From non-compliance or an alleged act which may prima facie appear inconsistent with an order and a conscious and deliberate act of disobedience are two different aspects of the matter. It is the duty of the petitioner to establish beyond reasonable doubt firstly, that the work complained of was actually undertaken and secondly, further the work was undertaken by the alleged contemnor and thirdly, such work was undertaken after the relevant order of the Hon’ble Court. Fourthly, that the work fell within the prohibition contained in the said order and finally, that the alleged contemnor undertook such work consciously and deliberately in defiance of the order.
Mr. Dey has further submitted that the petitioner seeks to establish contempt showing by relying upon photographs and his own allegation regarding the date and nature of the alleged work and attempt should be made to distinguish between an established act of deliberate disobedience and factual allegation which remains capable of more than one interpretation.
In support of his contention Mr. Dey has relied upon the judgment i.e. U.N. Bora & Anr. Vs. Assam Roller Flour Mills Association and Anr. reported in (2022) 1 SCC 101.
According to Mr. Dey, as his client does not commit any wilful violation or disobedience to the Court’s order, this contempt application is liable to be dismissed.
Mr. Das Poddar on his reply has drawn the attention of this Court to the specific observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 14 to 15.2 as hereunder:
“14.Before we part with the judgment we are constraint to observe the manner in which the pleadings have been filed in the Trial Courts or may be in some cases in the High Courts.
14.1A perusal of the plaint filed by the respondent shows that it contains ten paragraphs besides the prayer. In the written statement filed by the appellants, no specific para-wise reply was given. It was the own story of the respondent containing fifteen paragraphs besides the prayer in para 16.
15.In the absence of para-wise reply to the plaint, it becomes a roving inquiry for the Court to find out as to which line in some paragraph in the plaint is either admitted or denied in the written statement filed, as there is no specific admission or denial with reference to the allegation in different paras.
15.1Order VIII Rules 3 and 5 CPC clearly provides for specific admission and denial of the pleadings in the plaint. A general or evasive denial is not treated as sufficient. Proviso to Order VIII Rule 5 CPC provides that even the admitted facts may not be treated to be admitted, still in its discretion the Court may require those facts to be proved. This is an exception to the general rule. General rule is that the facts admitted, are not required to be proved.
15.2The requirement of Order VIII Rules 3 and 5 CPC are specific admission and denial of the pleadings in the plaint. The same would necessarily mean dealing with the allegations in the plaint para-wise. In the absence thereof, the respondent can always try to read one line from one paragraph and another from different paragraph in the written statement to make out his case of denial of the allegations in the plaint resulting in utter confusion.”
Mr. Das Poddar has further submitted that after going through the affidavit in opposition it is found that the allegations made in paragraph 10 of the contempt application was not specifically denied by the alleged contemnor and as such the allegation shall be deemed to have been admitted by him.
Mr. Das Poddar has also drawn the attention of this court to see C. Elumalai and Ors. (supra) in Para 13, it has been laid down as hereunder:
“13.From the above decisions, it is clear that punishing a person for contempt of Court is indeed a drastic step and normally such action should not be taken. At the same time, however, it is not only the power but the duty of the Court to uphold and maintain the dignity of Courts and majesty of law which may call for such extreme step. If for proper administration of justice and to ensure due compliance with the orders passed by a Court, it is required to take strict view, it should not hesitate in wielding the potent weapon of contempt.”
According to Mr. Das Poddar, a contempt application is to be disposed of after considering the affidavits of the parties to the suit. In this case, as the specific allegation of repairing work done at the instance of the opposite party no. 1 has not been denied specifically in the affidavit in opposition, the allegations as made out by the petitioner shall be deemed to have been admitted.
Mr. Das Poddar has also relied upon the judgment reported in Thangam and Anr. (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Court has been pleased to observe that the written statement must deal specifically with each allegation of the fact in the plaint and when the defendant denies any such fact is not specific but evasive the said fact shall be taken to be admitted. In such an event the admission itself being proved, no other proof is necessary. According to petitioner the opposite party/alleged contemnor has given evasive reply to his specific allegation and therefore, it is nothing but an admission from the side of the alleged contemnor that they persuaded with the repairing work in spite of stay order issued by the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench.
Mr. Dey has relied upon the judgment of U.N. Bora & Anr. (supra) in support of his contention. The said case law, inter alia, holds that while dealing with the contempt petition, the Court is not expected to conduct a roving enquiry and go beyond the very judgment which was allegedly violated.
Mr. Dey has also relied upon the judgment of Noor Saba v. Anoop Mishra and Anr. reported in (2013)10 SCC 248 in this regard. He has referred to para 14 of the said judgment as hereunder.
“14.To hold the respondents or anyone of them liable for contempt this Court has to arrive at a conclusion that the respondents have wilfully disobeyed the order of the Court. The exercise of contempt jurisdiction is summary in nature and an adjudication of the liability of the alleged contemnor for wilful disobedience of the Court is normally made on admitted and undisputed facts. In the present case not only there has been a shift in the stand of the petitioner with regard to the basic facts on which commission of contempt has been alleged even the said new/altered facts do not permit an adjudication in consonance with the established principles of exercise of contempt jurisdiction so as to enable the Court to come to a conclusion that any of the respondents have wilfully disobeyed the order of this Court dated 1.9.2010. We, accordingly, hold that no case of commission of any contempt of this Court’s order dated 1.9.2010 is made out. Consequently, Contempt Petition No. 3/2012 is dismissed. For reasons already recorded, Contempt Petition Nos. 6/2009 and 7/2009 shall also stand closed.”
After going through the materials on record and also considering the rival submission of the parties it appears that by order dated 17.03.2022 the operation of the order dated April 16, 2021 passed by the learned Trial Court was stayed and the same was subsequently extended from time to time. In the contempt petition in para 10 the petitioner has made the following allegation against the alleged contemnor. Para 10 of the contempt application is quoted hereinbelow for the purpose of proper understanding.
“10.The applicant states that on 01.05.2022 the applicant noticed that the said contemnor carrying on the repairing work and also carrying the work of making tin shed of blue colour thereby violating the direction as passed by the Hon'ble Court and when the applicant tried to prevent from doing the illegal activities, the contemnor herein forcefully have done the same. It would be note that the contemnor has covered the said tin shed with black colour plastic triple.”
From the affidavit in opposition filed by the alleged contemnor no. 1 shows that in para 10 of such affidavit he has mentioned as hereunder:
“10.With reference to the allegations made in paragraphs 10 & 11 of the said contempt application, I specifically deny such allegations made against me. I say that no illegal activity has been done by me.”
From the above it appears that such allegation was denied by the alleged contemnor. However, it is true that there was no specific denial although he has categorically stated that he specifically denied all the allegations made against him in para 10 and 11 of the contempt application. He shows that no illegal activity has been done by him. Therefore, in my view that although the term has been used ‘specifically’, there was actually no denial of the allegations line by line as made in para 10 of the contempt petition.
Undoubtedly, the allegations which required to be denied or traversed must be done specifically; otherwise, there is a scope for stating that the said persons admitted the allegations labelled against him. Although there is no need for a roving enquiry, it would be in fact, very difficult to ascertain the violations without recording the evidence. However, from the materials on record it appears that there is no chance of understanding as to the date when such violation was done. The case relied upon by the petitioner, that is, Thangam and Anr. (supra), the Hon’ble Court was also pleased to hold that a general or evasive denial is not treated as sufficient. However, in a contempt application the most important factor is whether the opposite party acted deliberately, and wilfully violated the order of the Court. In this regard, the materials on record are not sufficient. There is a doubt as to when such photographs were taken, as there is no date mentioned in the photograph itself. It is also not clear whether actually the alleged contemnor has committed the alleged violation or not and the nature and extent of the repairing work allegedly done in violation of the Court’s order. Unless there is clear evidence, it is very much difficult to punish the alleged contemnor in accordance with law. It is not correct that only because of evasive denial the case of the petitioner is proved. The violation on the part of the alleged contemnor should be proved by other supporting materials also. In this case, there is no sufficient and reliable evidence to show that the alleged contemnor has wilfully and deliberately disobeyed the Court’s order. In view of such discussion, I find that the evidence is not sufficient to hold that the alleged contemnor has committed the wilful and deliberate violation of the Court’s order. There is no need to proceed further against the alleged contemnor.
Accordingly, CPAN 577 of 2022 in CO 353 of 2022 is hereby dismissed.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court.
Urgent photostat certified copies of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on compliance of all necessary formalities.