SATYABRATA BISWAS AND ORS versus KALYAN KUMAR KISKU AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] 1 S.C.R. 413 · Decided: 27-01-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MOHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-" 
SATYABRATA BISWAS AND ORS. 
v. 
KAL YAN KUMAR KISKU AND ORS. 
JANUARY 27, 1994 
(S. MOHAN AND DR. AS. ANAND, JJ.] 
Contempt of Court Act, 1971: Power of Courts proceeding against con-
tempt-To confine to the precincts of contempt jurisdiction-Not to consider 
alien issues. 
Practice & Procedure: Oral mention in Court by a party not impleaded, 
itself in the proceedings-Court ordering on such oral application-Amounts 
to putting aside the law of procedure-Hence deprecated. 
Words & Phrases: Status quo-Meaning of. 
'Maxim' 'Actus curiae Neminem Gravabit'-Applicability of. 
The first respondent filed a suit in the High Court for declaration 
A 
B 
c 
D 
of title in respect of a Church property. It was claimed in the suit that the 
Diocese consisted of three rooms in the said property and its possession 
may not be disturbed. On the interlocutory applications, certain orders E 
were passed including an order of Status quo as on 15th September, 1988. 
The plaintiff filed a contempt petition against the appellants stating that 
the Court's orders had been violated as the appellants put a padlock on 
the main entrance, disconnected water supply, obstructed sewerage line 
and prevented the respondents from getting the rooms repaired. 
F 
The High Court appointed a Special Officer. He was permitted to 
break open the padlock and put his own padlock. Subsequently, the said 
order was modified to the effect that the Receiver would make the inventory 
of the articles, but would not put the main entrance gate under lock and G 
key. A modification to the said order was sought to the effect that the 
Special Officer should allow representatives of each of the parties and 
should not allow anybody from the occupier at the time of making inven-
tory. This was refused. Mter this, Respondent No. 2 viz. The Builders 
claiming to be a sub-tenant under a former tenant, as per agreement dated 
10th May 1993, and was not a party to any of the proceedings, nor H 
413 
414 
::IUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994] 1 S.C.R. 
A: impleaded itself as such, made an oral prayer for removal of the padlock 
and the Com1 allowed the same and directed the Receiver to remove the 
padlock. 
B 
Aggrieved by the abovesaid proceedings, an appeal was preferred to 
the Division Bench but was rejected as the Court was prima f acie satisfied 
that the Builder was in occupation of the disputed premises. Thus, the 
Court allowed the builder to occupy the said premises for the purpose of 
carrying on business in the usual course, and pay the occupation charges 
to the Joint Receivers appointed by the Court. Hence bis appeal. 
The appellants contended that in view of the status quo ordered on 
C 15th September, 1988, no tenancy or sub-tenancy could be created, and 
that it was strange that an oral application was made by the Builders and 
the Court passed an order on it. 
The First Respondent contended that in view of the status quo 
D ordered by the Court, the Diocese was entitled to continue its activities as 
on 20.S.1988. 
The Builders contended that there was no legal disability on the part 
of the former tenant to sub-let the property and so the Builders were 
lawfully inducted and that they were disturbed by the Special Officer who 
E 
had put the padlock, and only then an oral mention was made before tbe 
Court. It was also contended that since they were not.affected earlier, the 
question of impleading themselves did no.: arise earlier •. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
F 
HELD: 1. When the right of sub-tenancy was sought to be founded 
on an agreement dated 10th May, 1993, it should have occurred to the 
Single Judge that such a creation of sub-tenancy was clearly violative of 
the order of status quo passed as early as 15th of September, 1988. [ 425-F] 
2. It is extremely unfortunate that the Single Judge had not even cared 
G to bestow thought and entertained an oral application at the instance of a 
person who had nothing to do till then with the application for contempt. He 
had not even taken out an application to implead himself as a party. If mere 
oral mention could be enough to direct a Special Officer to remove the 
padlock, one has to put aside the law of procedure altogether and render 
H justice as the court conceives, conferring benedictions on parties who can-
... 
S. BISWAS v. KAL YAN KUMAR 
415 
not have any legal basis to found their claim. (425-G-H; 426-A] 
A 
3. When the removal of padlock was complained of in the appeal filed 
'by the ap

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.