S. Narayana Murthy Vs. State of Mysore

- code of civil procedure, 1908. order 21 rules 97,101 & 103: [a.n.venugopal gowda,j] obstruction to execution of a decree - questions to be determined by the executing court held, an application filed under order 21 rule 97, must be considered in accordance with the provisions of order 21 rule 101 c.p.c., the scope of such an application is quite wide and it is to be treated as though it is a title suit-when the objector filed an application under order 21 rule 97 claiming independent title to the property in question, the adjudication therein tantamount to a decree. further, when a person claiming title to the property in his possession obstructing the attempt by the decree holder to dispossess him form the suit property, the executing court is competent to consider all questions raised by the person offering obstruction against execution of the decree and pass appropriate orders as per provisions of order 21 rule 103 of c.p.c.,. the said order passed by the executing court has to be treated as a decree, as the proceedings under order 21 rule 97 is akin to a suit. the order of the executing court posting the case for adjudication of the claim of the respondent/objector on i.a.no.6 held, justified. - the court has to be satisfied that the accused intentionally offered interruption to the court. in cases coming under this section, the court is both the prosecutor and judge and so the power should be used only in exceptional cases.orderc. honniah, j.1. i am wholly unable to understand how on the facts stated by the munsiff, any offence was committed under section 228, i.p.c. the munsiff says that the proceedings in the court were interrupted by the accused who was working as a stenographer under him by not coming to the court hall though sent for. it is admitted that at the time the munsiff sent for the accused, the accused was typing issues in an original suit as the same had been dictated to him by the munsiff earlier. the accused told the daffedar who called him that he was typing the last sentence and that he would come after typing the same. after typing the last sentence, the accused went to the court hall. there was some delay in this process. this is not enough to convict the accused under section 228, i.p.c. the court has to be satisfied that the accused intentionally offered interruption to the court. in cases coming under this section, the court is both the prosecutor and judge and so the power should be used only in exceptional cases. the courts taking action under this section ought not to give room for the impression that they are unduly sensitive about their dignity. in this case there are no materials on which the munsiff could have come to the conclusion that the accused intended to insult him or to interrupt his proceedings. proceedings of this character on trivial matters will have a tendency to interfere with the proper administration of justice as they would put the party in fear of possible summary punishment for acts which may be innocently committed. i set aside the conviction and direct the fine to be refunded.