BDA, represented by then Commissioner Jayakar Jerome, had filed the complaint in January 2004 against Gururaj, a resident of Jayanagar, and his advocate B V Rammurthy, accusing them of “obstructing administration of justice by abusing the process of court.”

BDA had alleged the two had in October 2003 filed a second civil suit on the same cause of action, though a city civil court had, a month ago, rejected a similar suit filed by Gururaj’s father.

An appeal had also been filed before HC in the matter, BDA had said while alleging Gururaj and his advocate were only trying to keep legal proceedings alive to harass BDA. It sought to prosecute them for criminal contempt under Section 2(c) clause (iii) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - an offence punishable with a jail term. However, the advocate’s name was dropped from the complaint and BDA pursued the complaint only against Gururaj.

Gururaj defended saying his father’s suit had been dismissed for want of cause of action and he had filed a second suit as per Order 7 Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code (CPC). He also said appeal before HC was disposed in February 2004. Subsequently, he withdrew his suit.

The HC division Bench comprising Justice V Gopala Gowda and Justice L Narayana Swamy rejected BDA’s complaint as frivolous, short of imposing exemplary costs on it.

The Bench said while contempt action is taken for “calculated hampering of justice administration”, the accused only filed a second suit invoking his statutory remedy. “Filing of subsequent suit does not amount to contempt, much less criminal contempt,” the court said.

The Bench said “accepting BDA’s allegations would virtually amount to nullifying accused’s statutory right, in the name of contempt proceedings”. It said, “BDA’s complaint is filed either on wrong advice or with some grouse or vengeance against the advocate who had filed the two suits, but definitely not to punish the accused.”
The Bench said BDA was pursuing an unnecessary and unwarranted contempt case without any cause of action, and “a negligible matter was sought to be made a Mount Everest issue.”