Filing Of Suit To Assert Rights Cannot Amount To Contempt Of Court: Supreme Court

“We find that, by no stretch of imagination, it could be said that the filing of the suit for asserting the rights of the plaintiffs/respondents could be said to be amounting to contempt of the Court.”

The case was heard by a bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai, Rajesh Bindal, and Sandeep Mehta.

The brief facts of the case are that the land was given on lease to one Bapusaheb Bajirao Sawant. However, after two years, the lease deed was canceled. Consequently, 67 persons bought the land in question.

After Sawant's death, his legal heirs filed a suit claiming possession of the land in question based on the lease deed. Pertinently, a compromise agreement was entered into between the heirs and the Original Owners of the subject property. This was recorded as a consent decree by the Trial Judge.

The dispute arose when the appellant bought land that included part of the disputed land. The legal heirs filed another civil suit for a declaration and permanent injunction. After that, the appellant sent legal notices to all the respondents and brought to their attention the consent decree. Based on this, the appellant requested that they withdraw the suit filed.

Since the respondents did not withdraw the suit, the appellant filed a Contempt Petition. The Gujarat High Court dismissed the same. The High Court held that the mere filing of a civil suit asserting certain legal rights over the lands in question does not constitute a breach of the consent terms. Challenging this, the present appeal was filed before the Apex Court.

At the outset, the Court pointed out that the appellant participated in the proceedings, which he sought to withdraw. He also made an application for framing preliminary issues. While the application for framing preliminary issues was allowed, the application for rejection of the complaint was rejected.

Moving forward, the Court distinguished the case relied on by the appellant, Delhi Development Authority vs. Skipper Construction, and another., 1995 INSC 105, with that of the present case. In this case, after the matter reached finality by the orders of this Court, the suit was filed to protect the rights of the contemners. The Court opined that these proceedings obstructed the course of justice and initiated a criminal contempt case.

In the present case, there is no adjudication, the Court said and added:

“No doubt that the consent terms entered into between one of the predecessors in-title of the respondents and the Original Owners have received the imprimatur of the Court. However, the respondents claiming their ancestral rights over more than 2000 acres of land and also claiming that the said consent decree was obtained in collusion, had filed the suit in question.”

In view of these facts and circumstances, the Court did not interfere with the impugned order. The Court also clarified that these observations are limited to the maintainability of the contempt proceedings. Stating thus, the Court dismissed the appeal.

Case Title: M/S SHAH ENTERPRISES THR. PADMABEN MANSUKHBHAI MODI VERSUS VAIJAYANTIBEN RANJITSINGH SAWANT & ORS., Diary No.- 1961 – 2016

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 224

Click here to read/ download the judgment