Case Note & Summary
Background — The contempt appeal arose from First Appeal No.45/2006 pending before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench. The original suit R.C.S.No.2259/1992 (renumbered S.C.S.No.139/1999) was filed by one Mohammad Samad seeking a declaration that a sale deed executed in favour of the first respondent on 03.09.1991 was not binding on him. The suit was decreed on 17.12.2005, and the first respondent challenged that decree in First Appeal No.45/2006. During pendency of the appeal, on 10.04.2006, the court accepted an undertaking given on behalf of the original plaintiff that he would not alienate the suit property or create any third party interest therein. Mohammad Samad died on 26.08.2006. The first respondent moved Civil Application No.983/2007 for appointment of an appropriate person to represent the estate, asserting that the deceased had left no legal heirs. Pursuant to a public notice under Order XXII Rule 4A(2)(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the present appellants came forward claiming to be the legal heirs and were impleaded on 24.10.2007, with the question of their actual interest kept open. On 08.02.2008, the court passed an order restraining all parties to the first appeal, including the appellants as legal heirs, from alienating the suit property or creating third party rights. Despite this, the appellants executed a sale deed of the suit property on 28.04.2008 through a power of attorney holder. The first respondent learned of the alienation only in February 2013 when the purchaser filed an intervention application, and thereafter filed Contempt Petition No.165/2013 on 12.07.2013. The learned Single Judge convicted the appellants; the female contemnors were sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,000 each, and the male contemnors were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days and to pay fine of Rs.2,000 each, with default imprisonment of one week. Legal Issues — The central issues were whether the appellants had wilfully disobeyed the orders dated 10.04.2006 and 08.02.2008; whether the contempt petition was within the limitation prescribed by Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; and whether the unconditional apology tendered by the appellants warranted setting aside the conviction. Arguments — The appellants contended that they were not aware of the undertaking given by Mohammad Samad because their counsel had not informed them, and hence there was no wilful disobedience. They also argued that the contempt petition was filed beyond one year from the date of the alleged contempt, as the sale deed was executed on 28.04.2008 but the petition was filed in July 2013. Additionally, they pointed out that some appellants were illiterate ladies and all had tendered unconditional apology. The first respondent contended that the undertaking was given by both parties including Mohammad Samad; after his death, the appellants themselves sought impleadment as legal heirs and thus had knowledge of the proceedings; the sale was in breach; and no steps were taken to purge the contempt. Court's Analysis — The court found that the appellants had impleaded themselves as legal representatives under Order XXII Rule 4A(2)(a) CPC and were therefore bound by the prior undertaking and the subsequent restraint order dated 08.02.2008. It observed that by virtue of those orders, it was not open for the appellants to alienate the suit property; yet the sale was executed on 28.04.2008. On limitation, the court held that the period under Section 20 commences from the date of knowledge of the breach. Since the first respondent gained knowledge only in February 2013 through the intervention application, the contempt petition filed on 12.07.2013 was within one year, relying on Pallav Sheth v. Custodian, 2001 (4) Mh. L.J. 1. Decision — The available excerpt of the judgment does not include the final operative order; it records the court's analysis up to the point of determining wilful disobedience.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court - Wilful Disobedience - Binding Effect of Undertaking and Prohibitory Order - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Section 19 - The appellants were impleaded as legal representatives of the deceased original plaintiff under Order XXII Rule 4A(2)(a) CPC; they were aware of the undertaking given on 10.04.2006 and were specifically restrained by order dated 08.02.2008 from alienating the suit property; execution of sale deed on 28.04.2008 was in clear breach; Held that by virtue of these orders, it was not open for the appellants to alienate the suit property or create third party rights (Paras 5-8). B) Contempt of Court - Limitation - Commencement from Knowledge - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Section 20 - The respondent no.1 gained knowledge of the alienation only in February 2013 when the purchaser filed an intervention application; the contempt petition filed on 12.07.2013 was within one year from such knowledge; reliance placed on Pallav Sheth v. Custodian; Held that limitation under Section 20 runs from date of knowledge of breach, not from date of contemptuous act (Paras 5-6). C) Civil Procedure - Substitution of Legal Representatives - Order XXII Rule 4A(2)(a) - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XXII Rule 4A(2)(a) - After death of original plaintiff, court issued public notice; appellants filed pursis claiming to be legal heirs and were impleaded on 24.10.2007, keeping open actual interest; subsequent order dated 08.02.2008 restrained them; this impleadment established their knowledge and bound them to comply; Held that substituted representatives cannot act contrary to restraint orders (Paras 7-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellants were guilty of wilful disobedience of orders dated 10.04.2006 and 08.02.2008 passed in First Appeal No.45/2006; Whether the contempt petition was barred by limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; Whether the unconditional apology tendered by the appellants warranted setting aside the conviction.
Law Points
- Contempt of court includes wilful disobedience of an undertaking accepted by court and of a prohibitory order
- Legal representatives substituted under Order XXII Rule 4A(2)(a) CPC are bound by prior undertakings and subsequent restraint orders
- Limitation under Section 20 of Contempt of Courts Act
- 1971 commences from date of knowledge of breach
- not date of contemptuous act
- Unconditional apology may be considered but does not automatically absolve contemnor.
