Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1117 (MAD)

K. C. Perumal Reddiar v. N. Shanmugha Mudaliar

2005-07-20

R.BANUMATHI

body2005
Judgment :- This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 20.12.2002 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupattur (Fast Track Court) Vellore District in C.M.A.No.7 of 2002, dismissing the Appeal filed against the order made in I.A.No.160 of 1997 in O.S.No.1050 of 1996 on the file of District Munsif, Ambur, thereby confirming the order of Contempt. 2. Suit in O.S.No.1050 of 1996 relates to a Touring Cinema Theatre in S.No.37/6 – 1.25 acres / 2.96 acres, Keennadikuppam Village, Vaniyambadi Taluk. The lease rent was fixed at Rs.2500/-. "C” Form Licence was granted on 13.03.1994. Since there was delay of Four years One month and Eight days in obtaining C-Form Licence, Suit was filed to renew the lease beyond 04.02.1997 upto 13.02.2001. The Defendant has filed the Written Statement contending that the Plaintiff has not paid the arrears of rent and that he is the wilful defaulter in payment of rent. 3. I.A.No.1095 of 1996:- During the pendency of the Suit, this Application was filed for Temporary Mandatory Injunction, directing the Defendant to renew the Lease. The Trial Court / District Munsif, Ambur has granted the Temporary Mandatory Injunction. 4. I.A.No.160 of 1997:- The Plaintiff has filed this Application under Or.39 R.2A and Sec.151 C.P.C alleging that even after the order of Temporary Mandatory Direction, the Defendant has not complied with the order passed in I.A.No.1095 of 1996. The said Application was allowed by the District Munsif, Ambur, finding that the Defendant is guilty of Contempt of Court in not obeying the order of the Court. 5. C.M.A.No.7 of 2002:- As against the order of Contempt passed in I.A.No.160 of 1997, the Defendant has filed this Appeal before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppathur (Fast Track Court) Vellore District. Confirming the order of the Trial Court, learned Judge Fast Track Court, Tiruppathur has dismissed this Appeal. Aggrieved over the order of dismissal, the Revision Petitioner / Defendant has preferred this Civil Revision Petition. 6. Revision Petitioner has been represented by counsel Mr. P.Seshadri. The Respondent / Plaintiff was served, but not entered appearance. The name of the Respondent has been printed in the cause list. When the Revision Petition came up for hearing, it is informed that the Suits in O.S.No.268 of 1996 and the connected Suit in O.S.No.73 of 2001 have been settled through Lok Adalat. The Settlement was reported in O.S.No.73 of 2001. The name of the Respondent has been printed in the cause list. When the Revision Petition came up for hearing, it is informed that the Suits in O.S.No.268 of 1996 and the connected Suit in O.S.No.73 of 2001 have been settled through Lok Adalat. The Settlement was reported in O.S.No.73 of 2001. Certified copy of the Settlement recorded in O.S.No.73 of 2001 has been produced for perusal of the Court. By perusal of the same, it is seen that the Defendant / Revision Petitioner is to pay a sum of Rs.18,000/- to the Plaintiff / Respondent and on such terms, the Suits have been settled. The parties have agreed that the settlements are to be reported in Suits in O.S.No.268 of 1996 and the connected Suit in O.S.No.73 of 2001 before the concerned Courts. When the Suit in O.S.No. 268 of 1996 and the connected Suit in O.S.No.73 of 2001 have been settled, and suits have been disposed off pursuant to the Settlement Deed, nothing survives for consideration in this Revision Petition. Hence, whether there was Contempt of order of the Court in I.A.No.1095 of 1996 and whether there was wilful disobedience need not be gone into. 7. Recording the Settlement in O.S.No.268 of 1996 and the connected Suit in O.S.No.73 of 2001, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. The connected C.M.P.No. 16459 of 2003 is closed.