Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3864 (MAD)

B. C. Ramasamy v. K. S. Nagaraj

2010-08-31

M.JAICHANDREN

body2010
Judgment :- 1. This contempt petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to punish the respondents for the wilful disobedience of the order passed, by this Court, on 21.4.2008, in M.P.No.1 of 2008, in S.A.No.568 of 2008. 2. It has been stated that the second appeal, in S.A.No.568 of 2008, had been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 24.10.2007, made in A.S.No.30 of 2006, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Hosur. The suit, in O.S.No.178 of 2005, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Hosur, had been filed, in respect of the property in survey Nos.21/3 and 21/9, having an extent of 1.06 acres, situated at Govinda Agraharam, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District. 3. It had been further stated that this Court, while admitting the second appeal, in S.A.No.568 of 2008, had granted an order of interim stay of recovery of possession of the suit schedule mentioned property, which is said to be in the possession of the appellant in the said second appeal, by an order, dated 21.4.2008. As such, the petitioner had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. While so, the respondent had attacked the sister of the petitioner, namely, Rathinamma, with deadly weapon, when she was working in the suit property. Thereafter, a criminal complaint had been lodged against the respondent, before the Inspector of Police, Sipcot police station, Hosur. In such circumstances, the present contempt petition has been filed against the respondents for their willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court, on 21.4.2008, in M.P.No.1 of 2008, in S.A.No.568 of 2008. 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent in the contempt petition, it has been stated that he had never disobeyed or violated the order passed by this Court, on 21.4.2008. It has also been stated that no such incident, as claimed by the petitioner, had taken place. Further, he had tendered his unconditional apology, if this Court finds that he had committed contempt of court, as alleged by the petitioner. 5. It has also been submitted that the second respondent, who is 85 years old, is a sick and bedridden. As such, it is not possible for the second respondent to commit an act violating the order passed by this Court, on 21.4.2008. 6. 5. It has also been submitted that the second respondent, who is 85 years old, is a sick and bedridden. As such, it is not possible for the second respondent to commit an act violating the order passed by this Court, on 21.4.2008. 6. In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the contempt petition and in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the first respondent, this court does not find sufficient cause or reason to punish the respondents for committing contempt of the court, by wilfully disobeying the order, dated 21.4.2008 made in M.P.No.1 of 2008, in S.A.No.568 of 2008, as alleged by the petitioner. Hence, the contempt petition stands dismissed. No costs.