THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CONTEMPT CASE No.1174 OF 2010 DATED: 01-10-2010 ORDER: Petitioner filed this Contempt case under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), alleging that the respondents 1 and 2 have intentionally violated the order passed by this Court on 23-01-2007 in C.C.C.A.No.54 of 1992 and the order, dated 06-02-2009, in Rev.C.M.P.No.870 of 2007. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the record. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the contentions of the respondents 1 and 2 having been negated by the Court and the appeal in C.C.C.A.No.54 of 1992 filed by the respondents 1 and 2 having been dismissed on 23-01-2007 and the review application filed by them in Rev.C.M.P.No.870 of 2007 having been dismissed on 06-02-2009, respondents are creating hindrance by filing applications in I.A.No.284 of 2009, seeking amendment of the written statement and I.A.No.285 of 2009, seeking amendment of the preliminary decree. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would state that counters have already been filed in both the applications and the said applications are being contested and they are pending. 5. When that is so, the maintainability or otherwise of the said applications in the light of the earlier orders passed by this Court is a matter to be considered by the trial Court on merits. The filing of the applications in I.A.Nos.284 of 2009 and 285 of 2009 for the reliefs prayed for therein cannot by itself constitute any ground for initiating proceedings under the Act. It is always open to the petitioner to contest the said applications and invite orders on merits. Simply because certain applications are filed seeking amendment of the written statement or amendment of the preliminary decree, subsequent to dismissal of the appeal and review application, it cannot be said that by filing the said application respondents committed any act of contempt. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said applications are pending since long time without being disposed of. The trial Court may endeavour to dispose of the said applications at an early date. 6. There are absolutely no merits in the Contempt Case. Accordingly, Contempt Case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 01st October, 2010. Tsy