IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2008 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1930 CRP.No. 669 of 2004() --------------------- CMA.27/1998 of DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD OS.302/1996 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONERS: RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS ------------------------------------------------- 1.DHANABHAGYAM AMMAL, W/O. SUBRAMANIAN PILLAI PROPRIETRIX, RAJENDRA TALKIES, HEMAMBIKA NAGAR, RAILWAY COLONY, PUDUPPARIYARAM PANCHAYAT, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.(EXPIRED) ADDL.P2. C.SUBRAMANIAN PILLAI, S/O. CHINNAPA PILLAI, AGED 82 YEARS, AT 3/164, RAILWAY COLONY, KALLEKULANGARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. (ADDL. PETIITIONER NO.2 IS IMPLEADED AS THE SECOND PETITIONER VIDE ORDER DATED 7/3/2008 IN I.A. NO.55O/2008,551/2008 & 170/2008) BY ADVS. SRI.P.N.KRISHNANKUTTY ACHAN(SR.) SRI.K.MOHANA KANNAN RESPONDENTS: APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS ---------------------------------------------- 1. THE SPECIAL GRADE SECRETARY PUDUPPARIYARAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PUDUPPARIYARAM, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. THE PRESIDENT, PUDUPPARIYARAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH FOR R1 SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/06/2008, THE COURT ON 20.6.2008 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. -------------------------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 669 OF 2004 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of June, 2008 O R D E R The plaintiff in O.S. No.302 of 1996 on the file of the Additional Munsiff's Court, Palakkad is the revision petitioner. The revision is directed against the judgment dated 16.1.2004 in C.M.A. No.27 of 1998 which arose out of the order dated 31.3.1998 in I.A. No.1749 of 1996 in the above suit. 2. By order dated 22.6.1996 in I.A. No.1498 of 1996, the Munsiff's Court directed the defendants in the suit not to implement the order of cancellation of Ext.A12 cinema licence till the disposal of the suit. The plaintiff complained that the defendants violated the said order and thereby committed contempt of court. The trial court by order dated 31.3.1998 in I.A. No.1749 of 1996 directed detention of the defendants/respondents herein in civil prison for three months under Order XXXIX Rule 2A C.P.C. The said order was reversed in appeal and the appellate court set aside the order. Aggrieved by the judgment of the lower appellate court, the plaintiff has come up in revision. C.R.P. NO.669/2004 2 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that inspite of the order of the trial court not to implement the order of cancellation of the licence, the Panchayat did not allow the plaintiff to conduct the cinema show. It withheld the DCR and tickets and refused to seal the additional DCR and tickets to conduct the show. It is submitted by the plaintiff that by Ext.P3 letter dated 29.6.1996, the Panchayat rejected renewal of licence based on the same allegations which the trial court already found against them in the order in I.A. No.1498 of 1996. In support of her case, the plaintiff examined PW.1 and marked Exts.P1 to P4(a). The defendants were examined as RWs.1 and 2. No documents were produced on their side. The first defendant as RW.1 admitted that he had got information regarding the order passed in I.A. No.1498 of 1996. It is the case of the plaintiff that on the strength of the order dated 22.6.1996 she had approached the defendants for conducting the show, but they refused to put seal in the tickets and DCR which is a pre requisite for conducting the show. It is her further case that since her written requests were turned down, she sent a request through registered post, but the defendants denied having received the same. The first defendant as RW.1 admitted that he was in court on 19.6.1996 and was aware of the fact that the case was posted to 22.6.1996. He also admitted that he had read the application, I.A. No.1498 of 1996, and had got information regarding the order passed C.R.P. NO.669/2004 3 in the said application. 4. The learned Munsiff rightly found that the first defendant/Secretary was aware of the order passed in I.A. No.1498 of 1996 on the same day on which it was passed. It is an admitted fact that without sealing the tickets and DCR, the licensee cannot run the theatre. The first defendant did not permit the plaintiff to conduct the show on 22.6.1996 and thereafter. He also issued Ext.P3 letter to the plaintiff rejecting the request of the plaintiff for renewal of the licence for the same reasons which were considered and found against the defendants by the trial court. The trial court concluded that the Panchayat fully knowing the contents of the injunction application and the order passed by the court in the said application intentionally violated the order and that their conduct lead to the closure of the theatre. 5. The President of the Panchayat who was examined as RW.2 failed to give satisfactory reasons for not complying with the order passed by the court in I.A. No.1498 of 1996. The acts of the first defendant/Secretary evidently show that he disobeyed the order of the court. RW.2 had categorically admitted that the contents of the order was conveyed to him and to the first defendant by their counsel on the C.R.P. NO.669/2004 4 following day, that is, on 23.6.1996. The trial court also held that disobedience of the order is an obstruction to the administration of justice and amounts to contempt of court. The trial court thus ordered detention of the defendants in civil prison for a period of three months under Order XXXIX Rule 2A C.P.C. 6. The respondents/defendants challenged the order before the appellate court and as per judgment in C.M.A. No.27 of 1998, the appellate court allowed the appeal and set aside the order in I.A. No.1749 of 1996. According to the plaintiff, the lower appellate court did not go into the merits of the contention raised by her that the order of the trial court was violated. The appellate court relied on the final judgment of this Court in Writ Appeal No.2498 of 2002 produced as Ext.B38 which confirmed the order of the learned Single Judge in O.P. No.4482 of 1998 to the effect that there was enough material to justify the action of the Panchayat in cancelling the licence of the plaintiff with effect from 11.6.1996 though the period of original permit granted was upto 30.6.1996. The lower appellate court also found that there was no direction in I.A.No.1498 of 1996 to renew the permit and that without renewing the permit, the plaintiff is not entitled to conduct the cinema theatre. C.R.P. NO.669/2004 5 7. The trial court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla v. Hind Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd., A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 1240 wherein it is held that persons who disobey an order of interim injunction passed by a civil court under Order XXXIX Rule 2A C.P.C. is liable to be punished even if it is found ultimately that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. The view taken by the Supreme Court was followed by this Court in the decisions reported in Cheruvannoor Nallalam Grama Panchayat v. Ravi, 2006(1) K.L.T. 546 and Aravindaksha Menon v. Raghava Menon, 2007(2) K.L.T. 427. 8. As rightly found by the courts below, the plaintiff had the licence to run the theatre at the time of the order dated 22.6.1996 and the licence expired only on 30.6.1996. This Court is called upon to decide whether there was wilful violation of the order dated 22.6.1996 in I.A. No.1498 of 1996. If the first defendant/Secretary had complied with the order of the learned Munsiff, certainly the plaintiff could have run the theatre till 30.6.1996. It is true that this Court by judgment in O.P. No.4482 of 1998 as confirmed by the judgment in Writ Appeal No.2498 of 2002 justified the action of the Panchayat in cancelling the licence with effect from C.R.P. NO.669/2004 6 11.6.1996. Going by the decisions rendered by this Court in the above Original Petition and Writ Appeal, it is clear that the plaintiff could run the theatre till 30.6.1996 pursuant to the order dated 22.6.1996 in which there was a specific direction issued to the respondents not to implement the order of cancellation of the licence. So, the finding of the appellate court that without renewing the permit, the plaintiff is not entitled to conduct the cinema theatre and therefore, it cannot be said that the defendants have wilfully violated the order in I.A. No.1498 of 1996 is not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. The reversal of the order of the learned Munsiff and the reasons stated by the appellate court are faulty and liable to be interfered with. The materials on record undoubtedly show that the Panchayat disobeyed the order of the civil court and thereby committed contempt of court. Therefore, I am of the view that disobedience of order has caused obstruction in the administration of justice which amounts of contempt of court. In the circumstances, the finding of the trial court that the action of the Secretary of the Panchayat amounts to contempt of court is unassailable. The judgment under appeal is, therefore, set aside and the finding of the trial court is restored with the modification as stated below. 9. The trial court ordered detention of the defendants/respondents in C.R.P. NO.669/2004 7 civil prison for three months. On the question of sentence, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents requested this Court to consider the matter sympathetically. I fail to understand why the second defendant/President of the Panchayat was also proceeded against. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that interest of justice will be met with if the sentence is confined to the first defendant/Secretary alone. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I also feel that the proceedings against the second defendant/President can be dropped. I, therefore, order that the act of disobedience committed by the Panchayat shall be dealt with only by proceeding against the Secretary of the Panchayat. Hence, taking a lenient view, this Court is of the opinion that reduction of the imprisonment against the first defendant from three months to court hours for two days and a fine of Rs.10,000/- will meet the ends of justice. 10. The Special Grade Secretary of Puduppariyaram Grama Panchayat, Palakkad Taluk as on 22.6.1996 is directed to appear before the Additional Munsiff's Court, Palakkad on 8.7.2008 and 9.7.2008 and report to the learned Munsiff before 11 a.m. with a copy of this order. The present Secretary shall inform him about the order directly and by registered post. He shall remain in the court hall on 8.7.2008 and 9.7.2008 C.R.P. NO.669/2004 8 till the rising of the court. He shall also pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- to the legal heir of the deceased plaintiff who was impleaded as additional second revision petitioner on or before 8.7.2008. The order of the learned Munsiff shall stand modified to the above extent. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed as above. There will be no order as to costs. (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) sp/ C.R.P. NO.669/2004 9 HAURN-UL-RASHID, J. C.R.P. NO. 669/2004 O R D E R 20th June, 2008. C.R.P. NO.669/2004 10