1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (CONTEMPT JURISDICTION) THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2010 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN CONTEMPT PETITION No.1454 of 2009 AND SUB APPLICATION NO.437 OF 2009 ************ N.Vijayaraghavan, S/o.Nagappan, No.2, Bajanai Koil Street, Thirupukuzhi Village, Kancheepuram Taluk. ... Petitioner Vs 1.C.Perumal, S/o.Chithirai, Tank Street, Thirupukuzhi Village Colony, Kancheepuram. 2.C.Samivel, S/o.Chithirai, Tank Street, Thirupukuzhi Village Colony, Kancheepuram. 3.C.Subramani, S/o.Chithirai, Tank Street, Thirupukuzhi Village Colony, Kancheepuram. ... Respondents Contempt Petition praying that this Court be pleased to punish the respondent for violation of the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 11/12/2008 and made in M.P.No.1 of 2008 in S.A.No.692 of 2008. Sub Application No.437 of 2009 praying that this Court be pleased to grant an order of injunction restraining the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 respondents or their men or agents from proceeding further or putting up construction or altering the character of the suit scheduled mentioned properties. SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram Taluk, No.9, Thirupukuzhi Village, Pudhu Colony, in Water tank Street, in Nanja Survey No.353/5, 0.07.5 Ar,(0-19 cents) Measurements: North to South 62.2 meters East to West 12.6 metres Boundaries: South of the Street, East of Perumal site, North of Balaraman and others site, West of Kannan site. The above Contempt Petition and Sub Application coming on this day before this Court for hearing in the presence of M.Sriram, Advocate for the petitioner in Contempt Petition and Sub Application; and of Mr.V.M.Ravishankar, Advocate for the respondents in Contempt Petition and Sub Application; and upon reading the petition and the affidavit of N.Vijayaraghavan, filed in Contempt Petition; and the application and affidavit of N.Vijayaraghavan, filed in Sub Application; and the Counter Affidavit of C.Subramani filed herein; the Court made the following https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 order:- This contempt petition has been filed praying that, this Court may be pleased to punish the respondents for violation of the order passed by this Court, on 11.12.2008, in M.P.No.1 of 2008, in S.A.No.692 of 2008. 2. It has been stated by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that, in spite of the order of injunction passed by this Court, on 11.12.2008, in M.P.No.1 of 2008, in S.a.No.692 of 2008, restraining the respondents from encumbering or altering the character of the property, which is the subject matter of the suit, in O.S.No.238 of 2002, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kancheepuram, the respondents had put up constructions in the suit property, contrary to the order passed by this Court. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the first respondent had died during the month of January, 2010. 4. A counter affidavit had been filed stating that there is no wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court, on 11.12.2008, in M.P.No.1 of 2008, in S.A.No.692 of 2008, as alleged by the petitioner. The respondents 2 and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 3 have also tendered an unconditional apology, if this Court, for some reason, comes to the conclusion that they had committed contempt of Court, as alleged by the petitioner. 5. In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the contempt petition and the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 2 and 3 and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the said respondents, this Court does not find sufficient cause or reason to punish the respondents 2 and 3, for committing contempt of Court. Nothing has been shown on behalf of the petitioner, to substantiate his allegation that the respondents had wilfully disobeyed the order passed by this Court, on 11.12.2008, in M.P.No.1 of 2008, in S.A.No.692 of 2008. Hence, this contempt petition stands closed. However, it goes without saying that, it would be open to both the petitioner, as well as the respondents 2 and 3 to initiate appropriate civil, as well as criminal proceedings, as they may deem fit and proper, in respect of acts and omissions, that may be committed by the parties to the case, contrary to the provisions of law, and it would be open to the authorities concerned to look into such complaints, as and when they are made, and to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5 take appropriate steps, in accordance with the procedures established by law. No costs. Connected sub application is also closed. Witness the Hon'ble Thiru M.YUSUF EQBAL, The Chief Justice of High Court at Madras, as aforesaid, this the 2nd day of September, 2010. SD/- DEPUTY REGISTRAR (OS) //Certified to be true copy// Dated at Madras this the day of 2010. COURT OFFICER (O.S.) From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the orders/judgments/Decrees in this format. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6 Cns. CONTEMPT PETITION No.1454/2009 AND SUB APPLICATION NO.437/2009 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN ORDER DATED : 02/09/2010 FOR APPROVAL :01/11/2010 APPROVED ON :03/11/2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/