Judgment :- 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed calling in question an order passed on 18.10.2011 by the XIIIth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in Contempt SR. No: 39321 of 2011 in O.S. No: 4534 of 2010 and for a consequential direction to entertain the contempt petition and pass orders after conducting enquiry in accordance with law. 2. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit who filed an application under Section 94 © read with Section 151 Cr.P.C. praying to punish the respondent / plaintiff for contempt of Court since she made false allegations and obtained interim injunction by playing fraud upon the Court. 3. The brief facts leading to the filing of this Revision is as follows:- "(i) The respondent / plaintiff filed O.S. No: 4534 of 2010 for a permanent injunction against the revision petitioner / defendant restraining him from interfering or tresspassing with her possession and enjoyment of the suit property. In 2004, father of the revision petitioner who was a tenant in respect of the suit property, filed O.S. No: 6835 of 2004 for grant of permanent injunction against the plaintiff herein from evicting him from the suit shop, except under due process of law. After contest, the said suit was decreed as prayed for on 28.12.2006. As no appeal was filed, the said decree became final. (ii) According to the revision petitioner, the respondent / plaintiff suppressing all the aforesaid facts, had filed the present suit in O.S. No: 4534 of 2010 by alleging falsehood and had obtained an exparte injunction. Therefore, he sought to file a contempt petition. (iii) At the SR stage itself, the contempt petition was rejected by the Court below by holding that if there is any violation or disobedience as alleged by the petitioner, he can work out his remedy by way of execution proceedings and that the Court below has no power to punish the respondent / plaintiff in the present suit. Assailing the said order, petitioner is before this Court in this Civil Revision Petition. " 4. Mr. M. Jayaraman learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, by pointing out Section 15 (2) of the Contempt of Courts Act contended that the learned trial Judge should have taken the petition on file and ought to have referred the matter to the High Court to take action. " 4. Mr. M. Jayaraman learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, by pointing out Section 15 (2) of the Contempt of Courts Act contended that the learned trial Judge should have taken the petition on file and ought to have referred the matter to the High Court to take action. Instead the learned trial Judge took a view that the trial Court has no power to punish the respondent / plaintiff in the present suit and therefore, the order impugned is vitiated in law. 5. On the other hand, Mr. R.Abdul Museen learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that there is no error or illegality in the order of the trial Court in rejecting the contempt petition. He would submit that the factum of committing an act of contempt could be decided only after trial and it is for the revision petitioner to establish the said allegation in an appropriate proceedings and therefore, the trial Court was absolutely right in rejecting the said petition. 6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material documents available on record. 7. It is true that the petitioner has moved this petition under Section 94 ad 151 C.P.C. to punish the respondent for contempt of Court. Section 94 (e) of C.P.C. reads as under : "94. Supplemental proceedings :-In order to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated the Court may, if it is so prescribed,- (e) make such other interlocutory orders as may appear to the Court to be just and convenient. " Same way, Section 151 of C.P.C. reads as under : " 151. Saving of inherent powers of Court,- Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice, or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. " 8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's father had moved the Sub Court in O.S. No: 6835 of 2004 and the same was decreed on 28.12.2006. When the matters stood thus, now the respondent herein had filed another suit in O.S. No: 4534 of 2010 for the very same property. The revision petitioner herein has filed written statement in the pending suit. When the matters stood thus, now the respondent herein had filed another suit in O.S. No: 4534 of 2010 for the very same property. The revision petitioner herein has filed written statement in the pending suit. At that stage, the revision petitioner sought to file a contempt petition for taking action against the respondent / plaintiff for making false allegations and for supressing the factum of the earlier suit and the decree granted. At the SR stage itself, the trial Court has rejected the contempt petition by holding that, "As per Order 39 Rule 2 (a) of the CPC whenever a party to the particular proceedings disobey the order of the Court, they can be punished for contempt of Court. The suit filed by the petitioner attained finality. Even if there was any violation or disobedience as pleaded by the petitioner, he can work out his remedy by way of execution proceedings for the alleged contempt or disobedience against the decree passed in O.S. No: 6835 of 2004, this Court has no power to punish the respondent / plaintiff in the present suit. The Hon'ble High Court alone has got jurisdiction to entertain this kind of applications under contempt of the Court Act. Hence, it is decided that this petition is not fit for taking cognizance of the offence and as a result this petition is rejected." 9. A bare reading of the aforesaid order would reveal that the learned trial Judge has held that the trial Court has no power to punish the respondent in the present suit for an act of contempt, if any, committed with regard to an earlier suit decreed in the year 2006 and that only the High Court has power to entertain such applications. As regards the allegations levelled by the revision petitioner as acts of contempt, the trial Court held that for any violation or disobedience as pleaded by the petitioner, he can work out his remedy by way of execution proceedings for the alleged contempt or disobedience against the decree passed in O.S. No: 6835 of 2004. Such a conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Judge cannot be faulted with. The act of contempt should be proved by the revision petitioner in an appropriate proceedings and he cannot make use of the present suit to settle at rest all his other disputes with the plaintiff. 10. Such a conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Judge cannot be faulted with. The act of contempt should be proved by the revision petitioner in an appropriate proceedings and he cannot make use of the present suit to settle at rest all his other disputes with the plaintiff. 10. The Civil Revision Petition deserves no merit and acceptance and is accordingly dismissed. At this stage, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the applications filed by the respondent/plaintiff is pending before the lower Court for quite some time. Though, the said submission is resisted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, he states that the petitioner/defendant shall co-operate to expedite the trial. As requested by the learned counsel appearing on both sides, the trial Court is hereby directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within a reasonable time, however, not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no orders as to the costs.