Sevugapemmal Chettiar v. Chidambaram Chettiar — 1997 DIGILAW 846 (MAD)

Judgment :- KANAKARAJ, J. 1. This Contempt Application is to punish the respondents for having committed contempt of Court in trying to circumvent me decree in O.S. No. 135 of 1993 and nullify the effect of the decree therein by instituting several other proceedings in this Court as well as in the Civil Court. 2. The facts of the case are as follows: The petitioners and four others filed O.S. No. 135 of 1993 against respondents 1 and 2 herein as defendants, seeking a declaration that the plaintiffs, representing the worshippers of me Arulmigu Sevuga Perumal Ayanar Temple at Sithakur, are entitled to perform the ‘Laksharchana worship’ in the temple and to injunct Respondents 1 and 2 from obstructing the conduct of such ‘Laksharchana Worship.’ The decree was granted on 29.7.1994. There is no dispute that the decree has become final. The first respondent is the hereditary trustee of the temple. The second respondent is the Executive Officer and the third respondent is, actually the person, occupying the office of the Executive Officer. In other words, the second and third respondents are one and the same. The fourth respondent is a third party in the sense that he was not a party in the said suit, O.S. No. 135 of 1993. The case of the applicants is mat respondents 1 and 2 have instigated the fourth respondent to initiate proceedings in such manner that the decree in O.S. No. 135 of 1993 will be nullified. It is further alleged that the fourth respondent is in fact a fictitious person. 3. Let us now look at the number of proceedings filed by the fourth respondent and supported by respondents 1 and 2. The first is a Writ Petition No. 3934 of 1996, seeking a writ of mandamus to forbear respondents 1 and 2 (defendants in O.S. No. 135 of 1993) from permitting respondents 4 to 8 (plaintiffs O.S. No. 135 of 1993) from performing poojas and other activities in the temple. It goes without saying that the prayer in me writ petition is directly in conflict with the decree obtained in O.S. No. 135 of 1993. However, when the writ petition was taken up for admission on 24.4.19%, it is admitted that the names of respondents 4 to 9 were deleted from the array of parties. It goes without saying that the prayer in me writ petition is directly in conflict with the decree obtained in O.S. No. 135 of 1993. However, when the writ petition was taken up for admission on 24.4.19%, it is admitted that the names of respondents 4 to 9 were deleted from the array of parties. The second proceeding initiated by the fourth respondent is by way of filing a suit, O.S. No. 94 of 1996, on the file of the District Munsif, Aranthangi. This suit has been filed only by the fourth respondent and the defendants are only the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department and the Executive Officer of the Temple (second respondent). The prayer is to restrain the defendants from allowing the individuals to interfere with the conduct of Laksharchana worship and poojas by selling tickets and receiving offerings from me general public. It is clear mat this suit was also intended to nullify the decree in O.S. No. 135 of 1993. The said suit has subsequently been withdrawn before the contempt application was filed. The contention of the applicants is that the respondents are interfering with the course of justice and have thus committed contempt of Court. 4. While issuing notice on the Contempt Application, this Court wanted to verify the correctness of the allegation mat the fourth respondent is a fictitious person. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, me respondents have in fact produced the fourth-respondent in Court and he has signed before this Court to indicate mat he is not a fictitious person. In fact, in his counter affidavit, he says that he is a poojari by caste and plays the drum during festive occasions. He denies the allegation that he is a tool in the hands of first and second respondents and that he had filed the suits only for the purpose of safeguarding the interests of the temple and the general public. According to him, the applicants collect huge amounts of money by way of sale of tickets for me Laksharchana worship and that was precisely the reason why they obtained a decree in O.S. No. 135 of 1993. According to him, the applicants collect huge amounts of money by way of sale of tickets for me Laksharchana worship and that was precisely the reason why they obtained a decree in O.S. No. 135 of 1993. While stating that the scope for the proceedings initiated by him is different from O.S. No. 135 of 1993, he also tenders unconditional apology in the following words: “I am having highest regard to the Court of law and I am a faithful servant at the hand of this Honourable Court. I had no intention to degrade the authority of any Court and I am expressing my unconditional apology for whatever happened earlier. 5. The first respondent has also filed a counter affidavit saying that he is the hereditary trustee of the temple and he is not aware of any of the proceedings initiated by the fourth respondent. He is only concerned with the performance of the pooja in the temple. The second and third respondents being the Executive Officers of the temple, also deny that they had instigated the fourth respondent to file the writ petition and the suit to nullify the decree in O.S. No. 135 of 1993. He, however, says mat the fourth-respondent had met him and complained that the applicants should not be allowed to collect the money from the general public, as they were misappropriating the money for their own personal benefits. He further says that because of the decree in OS. No. 135 of 1993 he was helpless. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants has cited before us various decisions to suggest mat the act of the respondent, and in particular, that of the fourth respondent amounts to gross contempt of Court and abuse of process of Law by suppression of the decree in O.S. No. 135 of 1993. We do not propose to refer to any of those decisions because the proposition of law cannot be disputed. The only question is whether the facts of the case, as disclosed in the affidavit of the applicants and the counter affidavits filed by the respondents do establish that the respondents have committed any act of contempt. One thing is very clear from the pleadings viz. , that there is collection of huge amounts of money during the Laksharchana worship. The only question is whether the facts of the case, as disclosed in the affidavit of the applicants and the counter affidavits filed by the respondents do establish that the respondents have committed any act of contempt. One thing is very clear from the pleadings viz. , that there is collection of huge amounts of money during the Laksharchana worship. As in all cases, where huge amount of money is involved or mere is a chance for collection of considerable amount of money, there are always disputes between parties to appropriate or misappropriate such amounts. We do not want to say anything further on this aspect of the case, except to observe that parties are fighting only on account of such money and not really on account of the respect for the Court. It is not uncommon in these days that litigations are filed and proceedings are taken, by suppressing crucial facts or earlier decrees and orders. In this case, the applicants do not dispute that they have not in any way been prevented from executing the decree in O.S. No. 135 of 1993, 7. Coming to the conduct of the fourth-respondent, we have absolutely no doubt in our mind that the prayers sought for in Writ Petition No. 4519 of 1996 and in O.S. No. 94 of 1996, to which we have already made a reference clearly show that an attempt had been made to nullify the decree in O.S. No. 135 of 1993. The attempt of the fourth respondent was clearly to prevent, the applicants and the other plaintiffs in O.S. No. 135 of 1993 from collecting money for the Laksharchana Worship and conducting the same. The fact mat subsequently, the names of the plaintiffs were deleted in Writ Petition No. 4915 of 1996 and the fact mat O.S. No. 94 of 1996 was subsequently withdrawn do not in any way mitigate the fraudulent intention of the fourth respondent to prevent the applicants from performing the ‘Laksharchana Worship in spite of the decree in O.S. No. 135 of 1993. The apology tendered by the fourth respondent is not unconditional and in fact, he has made all attempts to justify the action taken by him. We therefore, hold the fourth respondent guilty of Contempt of Court in initiating proceedings by suppressing the earlier decree in O.S. No. 135 of 1993. The apology tendered by the fourth respondent is not unconditional and in fact, he has made all attempts to justify the action taken by him. We therefore, hold the fourth respondent guilty of Contempt of Court in initiating proceedings by suppressing the earlier decree in O.S. No. 135 of 1993. We are aware of the fact that the fourth respondent was not a party to O.S. No. 135 of 1993. But all the same, we have no doubt in our mind that he being a poojari should have been aware of the correct facts. That apart, he had in fact impleaded the plaintiffs in Writ Petition No. 4519 of 1996 and subsequently deleted their names. He would not have impleaded the plaintiffs, unless he was aware of the decree. What is more, the counter affidavit of the second respondent, Executive Officer falsifies the case of the first respondent, because it is stated by him mat the fourth respondent had met him and complained about the collection of funds by the applicants. We are however, of the opinion mat the subsequent conduct of the fourth respondent shows that he need not be sent to prison and a sentence of fine will meet the ends of justice. In this view of the matter, we impose a fine of Rs. 500/-(Rupees Five Hundred only) on the fourth respondent. 8. So far as the first respondent is concerned, he being a hereditary trustee and there being no proof that he had instigated the fourth-respondent, he is absolved. The second respondent should have been more careful because his counter affidavit does suggest that the fourth respondent had met him and he did not take any action because of the decree in O.S. No. 135 of 1993. However, there is no proof to show that he had instigated the fourth respondent in filing the suit, O.S. No. 94 of 1996 or Writ Petition No. 4519 of 1996. We therefore, administer a severe warning on the third respondent to be more careful in future in dealing with decrees of Court. 9. We impose a fine of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) on the fourth respondent, Nallathambi, which shall be payable by him on or before 31st August, 1997. The cost of this Application shall also have to be borne by the fourth respondent and the fee is fixed at Rs. 2000/-. 9. We impose a fine of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) on the fourth respondent, Nallathambi, which shall be payable by him on or before 31st August, 1997. The cost of this Application shall also have to be borne by the fourth respondent and the fee is fixed at Rs. 2000/-. In the event of the fourth respondent not paying the fine amount, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks. Respondents 1 to 3 are discharged. 10. The Contempt Application is ordered in the above terms. The connected sub Application is dismissed.