JUDGMENT :- Heard Mr. B.K. Sreenivasan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. A.S. Baalaji, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. This petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to punish the respondents for willful disobedience of the order of this Court, dated 31.03.2004, made in O.A.No.283 of 2004, in C.S.No.291 of 2004. 3. It is stated by the first petitioner that he is the owner of Item No.1 of schedule-A, property described in the petition and the first and the second petitioners are the owners of Item Nos.2 and 3 of schedule-A property. The first respondent is the brother of the petitioners and he is the owner of schedule-B property described in the plaint. Schedule-B property is located in front of schedule-A property. Item No.3 of schedule-A property, which is a common passage, is on the eastern side of Schedule-B property. With a view to develop schedule-A property belonging to the petitioners, they had entered into a development agreement with M/s. Rajcons. Under the said agreement, dated 24.09.2001, schedule-A property belonging to the petitioners could be developed only along with Schedule-B property belonging to the first respondent. The developers had demolished the construction over schedule-A property. At the request of the first respondent, the petitioners had executed a power of attorney, dated 212. 2001, in favour of the first respondent to enable him to represent the petitioners in fulfilling that obligation, in accordance with the agreement, dated 24.09.2001. While so, the first respondent with a view to develop his property and to block the development of schedule-A property had applied for a sanction from the Corporation of Chennai, as the owner of schedule-B property and as the power agent of schedule-A property. He had obtained the sanction plan, dated 21.08.2003, from the Corporation of chennai. The said plan shows the proposed constructions entirely on the schedule-B property, showing schedule-A property as the set back for the proposed construction on the schedule-B property. The plan does not show any proposed constructions on the schedule-A property. The said plan is not valid, since the first respondent had not been authorized to get the approval for such a plan. The plan does not show any proposed constructions on the schedule-A property. The said plan is not valid, since the first respondent had not been authorized to get the approval for such a plan. Since the first respondent was putting up construction over schedule-B property and since he had also encroached upon schedule-A property, the petitioners had contended that the plan approval obtained by the first respondent is without authority and therefore, invalid. 4. It has also been stated that the first respondent has entered into another development agreement with the second respondent, on 27.05.2002, for developing schedule-A property belonging to the petitioners. By the development agreement, dated 27.05.2002, the entire `A schedule property is shown as a set back for the construction over schedule `B property belonging to the first respondent. The first respondent had also entered into a registered agreement for sale, dated 20.11.2003, registered as Document No.2635/2003, with regard to schedule-A property belonging to the petitioners. Both the agreement of development, dated 27.05.2002 and the agreement for sale, dated 20.11.2003 are void in law. Since the respondents 1 and 2 had acted fraudulently and started putting up constructions over schedule-B property causing obstruction for the development of schedule `A property belonging to the petitioners, the petitioner had filed a civil suit before this Court in C.S.No.291 of 2004. An application in O.A.No.283 of 2004 had been filed praying for an order of interim injunction, restraining the respondents 1 and 2 or their men, agents, servants and representatives from putting up any construction over the schedule-B property, showing the property described in schedule-A as the set back, as per the plan sanctioned on, 21.08.2003. This Court had passed an order, on 33. 2004, which is as follows: "Erection of columns and filling up of the same with concrete mixtures alone are permitted to be proceeded with." 5. In spite of the order, the respondents 1 and 2 had disobeyed the order by putting up full constructions including the foundation and basement and they are also putting up further constructions for the ground floor. Thus, the respondents are liable to be punished for contempt of Court, as prayed for in the contempt petition. 6. In spite of the order, the respondents 1 and 2 had disobeyed the order by putting up full constructions including the foundation and basement and they are also putting up further constructions for the ground floor. Thus, the respondents are liable to be punished for contempt of Court, as prayed for in the contempt petition. 6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, it has been stated that a development agreement had been entered into between the petitioners and the first respondent, on 24.09.2001, for the development of schedule `A property. Since, the development could not progress, a communication, dated 15.05.2002, had been sent by the first respondent accepting the withdrawal from the development agreement, dated 24.09.2001. Thereafter, the first respondent had entered into a development agreement, dated 27.05.2002 with M/s. Geetha Constructions, based on the power of attorney, dated 212. 2001, executed by the petitioners for the development of schedule `A property. Subsequently, the constructions put up over schedule `A property were demolished by M/s. Geetha constructions, the second respondent, in pursuance of the development agreement, dated 27.05.2002. Since the `B schedule property belongs to the first respondent he is developing the property on his own and it is false to state that he had blocked the development of schedule `A property belonging to the petitioners. Since the petitioners had attempted to interfere with the construction activities, the second respondent had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioners in O.S.No.6059 of 2003 and had obtained an order of interim injunction, on 012. 2003. Suppressing the said fact the petitioners had filed a suit in O.S.No.224 of 2004 before the VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, praying for a permanent injunction against the first respondent. No order of interim injunction was granted to the petitioners. An order had been passed by this Court, on 31.03.2004, in relation to schedule `A property, which has been developed by the second respondent. The second respondent is developing schedule `A property belonging to the petitioners. Since the first respondent has put up constructions over his property, which is a schedule `B property, the interim injunction order does not restrain the first respondent from putting up constructions in his own property. The second respondent is developing schedule `A property belonging to the petitioners. Since the first respondent has put up constructions over his property, which is a schedule `B property, the interim injunction order does not restrain the first respondent from putting up constructions in his own property. The order passed by this Court, on 31.03.2004, can only relate to a construction in the `A schedule property, since there are no columns erected on `B schedule property for such an order to be passed. Erecting columns has not done the construction on `B’ schedule property and it is only in `A schedule property columns were being erected at the time of passing of the order of this Court, on 31.03.2004. 7. Based on the submissions of the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners as well as for the respondents, it is clear that there is no willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court, on 31.03.2004, in C.S.No.291 of 2004, by the respondents. It is also found that both the petitioners and the respondents are parties to the civil suits pending on the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai. Further, there is nothing to show on behalf of the petitioners for this Court to come to a conclusion that the respondents had committed contempt of Court by willfully disobeying the order of this Court, dated 31.03.2004. However, it is open to the parties concerned to work out their remedies in the Civil suits pending before the City Civil Court. This Court does not find sufficient reasons to punish the respondents for contempt of Court, as prayed for in the contempt petition. Hence, the contempt petition stands closed. No costs.