THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRIAH CONTEMPT CASE NO. 1532 OF 2009. ORDER: This contempt case is filed alleging wilful violation of the orders of this Court passed in ASMP.No. 2548 of 2008 in A.S.No. 1103 of 2002 on 10.12.2008. On 10.12.2008, this Court passed an order in A.S.M.P.No. 2548 of 2008 in A.S.No. 1103 of 2002 and the operative portion of the said order reads as under: “In the light of the above submissions made by the learned Counsel for the respondents, if any improvements are made, the respondents are not entitled to claim any value of the improvements in the event of success of the appellant.” In the contempt petition, it is alleged that the respondents in A.S.M.P.No. 2548 of 2008 in A.S.No. 1103 of 2002 furnished an undertaking that they would not change the nature of the property and pursuant to the undertaking, this Hon’ble Court closed the above petition by passing an order that if any improvements are made, the respondents are not entitled to claim any value of the improvements, in the event of success of the appellant and that as against the undertaking furnished by the respondents, the respondents 1 to 7 have demolished the property and sold away the fixtures, the doors and windows which are made of Rose wood and Teak wood worth Rs. 20,00,000/-. It is further alleged that the respondents have also sold away some of the shops and common area and took huge amounts from the proposed purchasers and entered into agreement of sale. It is also further alleged that contrary to the orders passed by this Court dt. 10.12.2008, the respondents have demolished the compound wall and thereby changed the nature of the property and therefore the action of the respondents amounts to disobedience of the orders of this Court and they are liable to be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents contends that it is true that at the time of passing of the orders on 10.12.2008, the respondents have given an undertaking that they would not change the nature of property and if any improvements made to the property, the respondents are prepared to forego the value of the improvements, in the event of the success of the appellant and recording the undertaking, this Court closed the ASMP observing that if any improvements are made, the respondents are not entitled to claim any value of the improvements, in the event of success of the appellant. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner herein is the appellant in the appeal. The suit was filed for specific performance of contract based on an oral agreement. The suit was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the first appeal before this Court. He also filed A.S.M.P.No. 2548 of 2008 seeking injunction against the respondents not to demolish or change the nature of the schedule property, pending disposal of the appeal. The respondents herein opposed the petition contending that the suit was filed on the basis of oral agreement and that the Court below dismissed the suit and throughout the pendency of the suit, there was no injunction against the respondents and therefore, no injunction can be granted at the appellate stage. The respondents also furnished an undertaking that they are not going to change the nature of the property and that if any improvements are made to the property, in the event of success of the plaintiff, the respondents are prepared to forego the value of the property. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the respondents, this Court closed the ASMP observing that if any improvements are made, the respondents are not entitled to claim any value of the improvements, in the event of success of the appellant. A perusal of the interim order goes to show that there is no any positive direction restraining the respondents from doing any act, except recording the undertaking furnished by the respondents. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the respondents demolished the property and improving the same amounts to change of nature of property, which is against to the undertaking furnished by them, cannot be countenanced in view of the observation of this Court that if any improvements are made, the respondents are not entitled to claim any value of the improvements, in the event of success of the appellant in SAMP.No. 2548 of 2008 in A.S.No. 1103 of 2002. Having regard to the nature of the order passed in ASMP.No. 2548 of 2008 in A.S.No. 1103 of 2002, this Court is the view that the allegations made by the petitioners do not amount to violation of the interim orders passed by this Court and in the circumstances, I do not see any reason to say that the respondents have violated the orders passed by this Court. No case is made out to pass any orders in the contempt case. Accordingly, the contempt case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.CHANDRAIAH,J 18.3.2010. Krb. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRIAH CONTEMPT CASE NO. 1532 OF 2009 Dt. 18.3.2010.