Contempt requires reliable proof of wilful disobedience; evasive denial alone cannot establish a violation.

By order dated 17 March 2022 in CO 353 of 2022, the High Court directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit premises; the order stayed the operation of the trial court’s order permitting repairs.

The petitioner alleged that on 1 May 2022 the alleged contemnor carried out repairs and constructed a blue tin shed despite the order, and relied on photographs and a police GD entry.

The alleged contemnor denied the allegations, stating that he had done no illegal activity.

The contempt application was dismissed for insufficient evidence of wilful and deliberate disobedience.

1. Whether the petitioner established that the alleged contemnor wilfully and deliberately violated the High Court’s order of 17 March 2022 by carrying out repair work at the suit premises.

2. Whether the alleged contemnor’s general denial, despite the absence of a line-by-line traverse, was sufficient to establish contempt where the supporting evidence was uncertain.

Contempt requires proof of wilful disobedience; an apparent act of non-compliance is distinct from conscious and deliberate defiance, and the alleged violation must be established by sufficient evidence.

Contempt jurisdiction is summary and ordinarily proceeds on admitted or undisputed facts; the court should not conduct a roving inquiry into disputed matters (U.N. Bora & Anr. v. Assam Roller Flour Mills Association & Anr., (2022) 1 SCC 101; Noor Saba v. Anoop Mishra & Anr., (2013) 10 SCC 248).

Order VIII Rules 3 and 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure require specific admissions or denials, and a general or evasive denial may be insufficient; however, such a pleading deficiency does not, by itself, prove contempt (Thangam and Ors. v. Navamani Ammal, 2024 INSC 164).

The court also noted that contempt may be invoked to uphold the dignity of the courts and the due compliance with their orders (C. Elumalai and Ors. v. A.G.L. Irudayaraj and Anr., (2009) 4 SCC 213).

The alleged contemnor’s affidavit did not traverse the specific allegations line by line, although it denied them and asserted that no illegal activity had been done.

The court nevertheless held that the pleading deficiency could not substitute for proof of contempt. The photographs did not establish when the work was undertaken, and the evidence did not reliably identify the person who carried it out, its nature or extent, or whether it fell within the order’s prohibition.

These unresolved factual matters prevented the court from finding, on sufficient evidence, that the alleged contemnor had consciously and deliberately disobeyed the order; resolving them would require an impermissible roving inquiry.

CPAN No. 577 of 2022 was dismissed; any interim order was vacated and pending applications were disposed of.