CONTEMPT OF COURT In our view, unless there has been a prima facie statement and averment with the words "willful disobedience" there cannot be any prima facie case of contempt. Moreover, the Contempt of Courts (Andhra Pradesh High Court) Rules,1980 (for short 'the Rules') have also stated how a statement has to be made with regard to the contempt proceedings by a petitioner. Rule 7 of the Rules mandates as follows: "7. (1) Every petition under Rule 5(b) and (c) shall contain: (a) the name, description and place of residence of the petitioner or petitioners and of the person charged: (b) the nature and details of the contempt alleged, and such material facts, including the date or dates of commission of the alleged contempt, as may be necessary for the proper determination of the case; (c) the details of the petition previously made by the petitioner on the same facts, if any, and the result thereof. (2) Where the petitioner relies upon a document or documents in his possession or power and refers to them in the petition in support thereof, he shall file such document or documents or true copies thereof duly authenticated along with the petition. (3) No Court-fee shall be payable on the petition or on any documents filed in the contempt proceedings." It is clear from the said affidavit that there are no such particulars as required under the aforesaid Rules. Unless the statements and averments are made in complete compliance of Section 2(b) read with Rule 7 as above, there cannot be any prima facie disclosure of commission of contempt. More over, the allegations are made not in relation to the execution or non-execution of a document, on creation of a third party interest or execution of a document on the allegations made with regard to possession. The Hon'ble First Court while passing the order in respect of which contempt application has been filed, as we have already noted, has not ordered regarding possession. Therefore, the allegations are absolutely unrelated to the order passed earlier. The Hon'ble trial Judge, in our considered view, with great respect, has not checked up the aforesaid fatal lacuna and without looking into the same, His Lordship has been pleased to pass an order at the interlocutory stage, which again is a separate, different order. This was done because proper assistance was not rendered to His Lordship, otherwise, His Lordship would not have passed such an order. Be that as it may, a mistake is a mistake. Whether mindful or unmindful, a mistake cannot be allowed to remain. We therefore, hold that the learned trial Judge ought not to have entertained the contempt application. Unless those allegations are maintained, the Court cannot assume the jurisdiction. Therefore, the First Court lacks jurisdiction as jurisdictional fact was not mentioned. Therefore, the order is passed without any jurisdiction. The contempt application was also filed without having any foundation under the law. Accordingly, we set aside the order and dismiss the contempt case and the contempt case shall not be proceeded with. - 2015 A.P. (2014) MSK LAW REPORTS

  CONTEMPT OF COURT
  In our view, unless there has been a prima facie statement and averment
with the words "willful disobedience" there cannot be any prima facie case of
contempt.  
Moreover, the Contempt of Courts (Andhra Pradesh High Court) 
Rules,1980 (for short 'the Rules')  have also stated how a statement has to be
made with regard to the contempt proceedings by a petitioner. 
Rule 7 of the Rules mandates as follows: 
 "7. (1)  Every petition under Rule 5(b) and (c) shall contain:
(a) the name, description and place of residence of the petitioner or
petitioners and of the person charged:
(b)  the nature and details of the contempt alleged, and such material facts,
including the date or dates of commission of the alleged contempt, as may be
necessary for the proper determination of the case;
(c)  the details of the petition previously made by the petitioner on the same
facts, if any, and the result thereof.
(2) Where the petitioner relies upon a document or documents in his possession
or power and refers to them in the petition in support thereof, he shall file
such document or documents or true copies thereof duly authenticated along with
the petition.
(3) No Court-fee shall be payable on the petition or on any documents filed in
the contempt proceedings." 
       It is clear from the said affidavit that there are no such particulars as
required under the aforesaid Rules.  
Unless the statements and averments are
made in complete compliance of Section 2(b) read with Rule 7 as above, there
cannot be any prima facie disclosure of commission of contempt. 
More over, the
allegations are made not in relation to the execution or non-execution of a
document, on creation of a third party interest or execution of a document on
the allegations made with regard to possession. 
The Hon'ble First Court while
passing the order in respect of which contempt application has been filed, as we
have already noted, has not ordered regarding possession. 
 Therefore, the
allegations are absolutely unrelated to the order passed earlier.  
The Hon'ble
trial Judge, in our considered view, with great respect, has not checked up the
aforesaid fatal lacuna and without looking into the same, His Lordship has been
pleased to pass an order at the interlocutory stage, which again is a separate,
different order. 
This was done because proper assistance was not rendered to His
Lordship, otherwise, His Lordship would not have passed such an order.  
Be that
as it may, a mistake is a mistake.   Whether mindful or unmindful, a mistake
cannot be allowed to remain.  
We therefore, hold that the learned trial Judge
ought not to have entertained the contempt application.  Unless those
allegations are maintained, the Court cannot assume the jurisdiction. Therefore,
the First Court lacks jurisdiction as jurisdictional fact was not mentioned.
Therefore, the order is passed without any jurisdiction.  The contempt
application was also filed without having any foundation under the law.
Accordingly, we set aside the order and dismiss the contempt case and the
contempt case shall not be proceeded with. - 2015 A.P. (2014) MSK LAW REPORTS

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS