Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1066 (MAD)

Kusum Ashok v. N. Ajit Kumar

2008-03-26

M.JAICHANDREN

body2008
Judgment :- Heard Ms.P.Ramya, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.A.Palaniappan., the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. This contempt petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to punish the respondents for wilfully and deliberately disobeying the order passed by this Court, on 24.02.2004, in O.A.No.161 of 2004 in C.S.No.166 of 2004. 3. It has been submitted that the petitioner had filed a civil Suit in C.S.No.166 of 2004, before this Court for partition and for separate possession of her half share in the plaint schedule properties and for a permanent injunction and for other reliefs. The petitioner had also filed an original application in the said suit in O.A.No.161 of 2004, praying for an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents therein from in any way dispossessing the petitioner from Item 1 of the plaint schedule properties and from preventing her from entering the said property, without following the due process of law. This Court, by its order, dated 24.02.2004, had granted an order of interim injunction as prayed for by the petitioner. The petitioner has further submitted that in spite of the said order of this Court, dated 24.02.2004, the respondents had prevented the petitioner from entering into Item 1 of the plaint schedule properties. Thus, the respondents had committed contempt of Court by wilfully and deliberately disobeying the orders passed by this Court, on 24.02.2004, made in O.A.No.161 of 2004 in C.S.No.166 of 2004. 4. In the counter affidavit filed before this Court, it has been stated that no contempt has been committed by disobeying the order passed by this Court, on 24.02.2004. An unconditional apology had also been tendered, in case, it was found that the respondents have committed contempt of Court by any act or omission. The petitioner was never prevented from entering Item No.1 of the plaint schedule properties at any time subsequent to the order passed by this Court, on 24.02.2004.. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the order, dated 24.02.2004, had been modified by this Court, by its order, dated 08.04.2004, recognising the petitioners right to reside in the property, which is the subject matter of the original application in O.A.No.161 of 2004. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the order, dated 24.02.2004, had been modified by this Court, by its order, dated 08.04.2004, recognising the petitioners right to reside in the property, which is the subject matter of the original application in O.A.No.161 of 2004. In view of the order, passed by this Court, on 08.04.2004, the contempt petition filed by the petitioner based on the earlier order, passed by this Court, on 24.02.2004, cannot be sustained. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had also submitted that the respondents are obliged to give an undertaking that they would not disturb the petitioner and the members of her family, as ordered by this Court, in its order, dated 08.04.2004, made in O.A.No.161 of 2004 in C.S.No.166 of 2004. 7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, the contempt petition stands closed. No costs.