IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21-02-2008 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Contempt Petition No. 376 of 2004 G.Siromony .. Petitioner. Versus Mr.Anwardeen .. Respondent. Prayer: Petition under Section 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 70/71 to punish the respondents for having committed contempt of Court for disobeying the order, dated 21.02.2003, made in C.M.P.No.1369 of 2003 in S.A.No.141 of 2003, on its file, made absolute by Order, dated 13.08.2003. For Petitioner : Mr.B.K.Sreenivasan For Respondent : Mr.K.Rajasekar Government Advocate Mr.E.Sundaram Advocate Commissioner O R D E R Heard Mr.B.K.Sreenivasan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr.K.Rajasekar, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent and Mr.E.Sundaram, the learned counsel appearing as Advocate Commissioner. 2. This petition has been filed to punish the respondent for contempt of Court for wilful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court, on 21.02.2003, in C.M.P.No.1369 of 2003, in S.A.No.141 of 2003, made absolute by the order, dated 13.08.2003. 3. It is stated by the petitioner that he is the appellant in the second appeal in S.A.No.141 of 2003, pending before this Court. The petitioner had filed a civil miscellaneous petition in C.M.P.No.1369 of 2003, praying for an order of interim injunction to restrain the respondents therein and their men and others claiming under them from interfering, in any way, with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property, which was the subject matter of O.S.No.817 of 1991, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram, pending disposal of the second appeal. By an order, dated 21.02.2003, this Court had granted an order of interim injunction against the first respondent. Thereafter, by an order, dated 13.08.2003, the order passed by this Court, on 21.02.2003, had been made absolute. In spite of having knowledge of the said orders passed by this Court, the respondent and his subordinates had started interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the petitioner by restraining the petitioner from tapping the rubber trees therein and from taking the yield from the arecanut trees in the suit property. By a notice, dated 15.10.2003, the petitioner had brought to the notice of the respondent that he was acting contrary to the orders passed by this Court. In spite of receiving the said notice, the respondent did not stop interfering with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. In such circumstances, the petitioner has been constrained to file the present contempt petition to punish the respondent for committing contempt of Court by wilfully disobeying the orders passed by this Court, as stated in the contempt petition. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent tendering his unconditional apology, if this Court finds that, by some act or omission, the respondent had committed contempt of Court. It has also been stated that the land in question having an extent of 4 acres in Old Survey No.3070/1 of Churulacode Village, Kalkulam Taluk, corresponding to R.S.No.594, had been encroached by the petitioner. As per the revenue records, the old S.No.3070 had been classified as Kadu poramboke and it was lying within the boundaries of Veerapuli Reserved Forest. During the re-survey, the area has been measured as R.S.No.594 and wrongly classified as 'Assessed Waste Dry'. Thereafter, the respondent had taken all necessary steps to rectify the defects with the Revenue Department. The said area had been notified as Reserved Forest, as per the notification issued under Section 18 of Regulation II of 1068 (M.E.) of Travancore Government, on 17.07.1903. The petitioner had filed a suit in O.S.No.817 of 1991, on the file of the District Court, Padmanabhapuram, praying for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the first defendant therein and his subordinates from trespassing into the schedule mentioned property. The said suit had been dismissed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed an appeal in A.S.No.161 of 1998, on the file the Sub Court, Padmanabhapuram. The First Appellate Court by its judgment and decree, dated 04.02.2002, made in A.S.No.161 of 1998, had confirmed the decision of the trial Court. 5. In such circumstances, the petitioner had filed a second appeal before this Court in S.A.No.141 of 2003 and had obtained an order of interim injunction in C.M.P.No.1369 of 2003, as prayed for therein. After the appeal filed by the petitioner in A.S.No.161 of 1998, had been dismissed on 04.02.2002, the petitioner who had encroached and occupied the forest area, had been evicted by the respondent, on 25.01.2003. However, the petitioner had misrepresented before this Court that he was in possession of the property in question and had obtained an order of interim injunction, on 21.02.2003, in C.M.P.No.1369 of 2003. After the said order had been passed by this Court, the respondent had not done anything, which could be termed as wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court. 6. It is reiterated by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that in spite of the order passed by this Court, granting an order of interim injunction, restraining the respondent from interfering with the petitioner's possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property, the respondent has continued to interfere, contrary to the orders passed by this Court. The interim order had been passed by this Court, on 01.02.2003, and the same had been made absolute, on 13.08.2003. 7. However, from the records produced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent it is seen that the property in question had been taken over by the respondents, on 25.01.2003, even before the interim order had been passed by this Court. 8. The Advocate Commissioner appointed by this Court had filed a report in which he has stated that there were rubber trees in the property and there was evidence of collection of latex long time back, showing that they were not utilised for a long period. Further, there was a building in the suit property and it was unfit for any residential purposes,and there was no evidence of cultivation in the land in question. M.JAICHANDREN,J. csh 9. It was alleged by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the records produced by the respondent were fabricated. However, there was nothing shown on behalf of the petitioner to substantiate the said allegation. 10. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to punish the respondent for contempt of Court. Hence, the contempt stands closed. No costs. Index:Yes/No 21-02-2008 Internet:Yes/no csh Cont. Petition No.376 of 2004