Violation Of Court Order: Karnataka HC Modifies Sentence Of Cancer Patient From Imprisonment To ₹3L Fine

The Karnataka High Court has set aside the imprisonment sentence of one cancer patient on compassionate ground and converted it fine of ₹3 lakh.

The Court was considering and appeal filed under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC ordering detention of the Appellant for a period of one month for violation of the interim order.

The single-bench of Justice HP Sandesh observed, "When such being the material on record, it is appropriate to condone the punishment, since the appellant is suffering from cancer and taking note of mental agony on the plaintiffs, it is appropriate to award a fine of Rs.3 lakhs instead of punishment for the willful disobedience of the Court order."

The Appellant was represented by Senior Counsel Krishna Murthy while the Respondent was represented by Advocate T. Seshagiri Rao.

The factual matrix of the case of the Plaintiffs before the Trial Court was that the plaintiffs had filed a suit for partition and separate possession of their 2/9th share in the suit schedule properties along with an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC praying for interim order of injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule properties, pending disposal of the suit and the Trial Court passed an order that Defendant Nos.1 to 3 shall not alienate the suit schedule properties till their filing of objections to I.A.No.1. The Plaintiff No.2 filed an affidavit before the Trial Court that the order was violated by Defendant No.2 by executing Sale Deeds. The Trial Court taking note of the material on record comes to the conclusion that the appellant herein violated the order and ordered to detain him for a period of one month.

Senior Counsel for the Appellant contended that the Appellant was not having the knowledge or information regarding passing of orders and contended that P.W.2 herself admitted during the cross-examination that defendant No.2 and his previous counsel were not appearing before the Court regularly. It was contended that the application was taken along with main suit and there was a delay in passing the order and imposing the punishment is very harsh and he has not disobeyed any order and there was no any willful disobedience. He cited Supreme Court's judgement in U.C. SURENDRANATH v. MAMBALLY’S BAKERY and brought to the notice of the Court that for a person to be found guilty under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC, a mere disobedience of interim order would not be suffice, but there must be ‘willful disobedience’ of the orders passed by the Court. He further contended that when there is no such willful disobedience, the Courts cannot hold a person guilty under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC.

He also cited Supreme Court's ruling in C. ELUMALAI AND OTHERS v. A.G.L. IRUDAYARAJ AND ANOTHER wherein the violator tendered apology but continued violating the order and despite coming to such conclusion, the Supreme Courtm imposed heavy cost and did not impose imprisonment.

He also brought to the notice of the Court, the affidavit filed by the Appellant stating that he has sought an unconditional apology that he has not committed any willful disobedience and contend that he is suffering from throat cancer from more than two years and underwent radiation and chemotherapy and the doctors had also suggested to undergo surgery for third stage cancer. The Counsel also produced the document of medical records for having taken the treatment in the second week of May 2021 and chemotherapy session and surgery were postponed due to Covid-19.

The Court concluded that there is clear willful disobedience on part of the Appellant.

"Hence, it is clear that even inspite of having knowledge of the order, without filing the objections to I.A.No.1, when the date is fixed for filing of objections on 13.02.2002, did not choose to file the objections and sold the property on 10.10.2002 and even written statement and objections not filed and thereafter, an application is filed seeking permission to file the objections on 02.08.2003 after selling the property and hence the Court has to take note of the conduct of the appellant," the Court observed.

The Court was left to decide whether in such a case, he is entitled for pardon and condoning the punishment and observed, "...taking note of the medical records placed before this Court along with the affidavit, an unconditional apology is sought. But the fact is that the medical records produced are of the year 2021 and no recent documents are placed before the Court except the document of 2021 stating that he underwent chemotherapy. This Court can take note of the said fact into] consideration and at the same time take note of the agony underwent by the respondents. The suit is filed in the year 2001 and for more than two decades the respondents are fighting for their share. The respondent No.1 lost her husband and is having a daughter, but the appellant has not given the share for more than two decades and same also to be taken note of while considering the unconditional apology in view of the health condition of the appellant. There is a willful disobedience of the order of the Court, instead of filing objections to I.A.No.1, the appellant sold the property after ten months of passing of the interim order and even after selling the property also not filed the objections to the I.A. and the same was filed only after recording not filed objections and written statement and on 09.08.2023 filed the statement of objections and the order was remaining in force. For more than two decades, the respondents are fighting for their legal share and the Courts have found that respondent No.1 was impersonated while getting the document of partition deed registered. The appellant claims partition of the year 2010, wherein the respondents/plaintiffs was impersonated and the Trial Court as well as this Court held that there was a impersonation. When such being the material on record, it is appropriate to condone the punishment, since the appellant is suffering from cancer and taking note of mental agony on the plaintiffs, it is appropriate to award a fine of Rs.3 lakhs instead of punishment for the willful disobedience of the Court order."

The Appeal was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Sri Ananda Reddy vs. Smt. Radhamma

Appearances:

Appellant- Senior Counsel Krishna Murthy, Advocate Chandrkanth Patil K.

Respondent- Advocate T. Seshagiri Rao

Click here to read/ download Judgement: