Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1683 (MAD)

Lakshmanan Servai v. S. Karuppaiah

2015-03-30

PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA

body2015
Judgment :- 1. The judgment debtors in O.S.No.28 of 1988 are the revision petitioners. 2. The revision petitions are filed against orders passed (i). in E.P.No.16 of 2011 in O.S.No.28 of 1988 on the file of the District Munsif, Thirumayam, allowing an application under Order 21 Rule 32 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure for punishing the revision petitioners herein for disobedience of the decree and (ii). in E.A.No.7 of 2011 in E.P.No.16 of 2011 allowing the application seeking Police protection. 3. O.S.No.28 of 1988 was filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 3 from cutting and removing the trees and not indulge in illegal activities with respect to the suit property. The suit was decreed on 25/8/1993. 4. E.P.No.16 of 2011 was filed by the decree holder for the disobedience by the revision petitioners herein of the decree. The appeal filed in A.S.No.373 of 1993 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Pudukottai was also dismissed on 14/11/1996, confirming the decree. While so, the revision petitioners, suppressing all the above facts, changed the patta in their names and unnecessarily picked up quarrel with the decree holder. There was also a complaint given to the Sub-Collector, Pudukottai. Suppressing all the above facts, the revision petitioners had gone to Thirumayam Taluk Legal Aid Committee and obtained an order in letter No.196/11 dated 12/1/2011. 5. Pursuant to the said order with the aid of the Thirumayam Police, the judgment debtors had removed the grown up trees on the suit property on 22/3/2011. The decree holder immediately challenged the order of the Taluk Legal Aid Committee by way of a writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.2306 of 2011 and obtained an order of injunction. As the judgment debtors had willfully disobeyed the decree despite having knowledge about the same and changed the patta also in their names, they have committed an act of contempt. Hence the application under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the decree holder for sending the judgment debtors to civil prison. 6. The other application was filed for Police protection for the removal of the cut trees from the suit property. 7. The applications were challenged by the judgment debtors by filing their counter contending that they had not disobeyed the decree and denied the allegation of cutting and removing the trees. 8. 6. The other application was filed for Police protection for the removal of the cut trees from the suit property. 7. The applications were challenged by the judgment debtors by filing their counter contending that they had not disobeyed the decree and denied the allegation of cutting and removing the trees. 8. The learned District-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam, who heard the applications categorically held that in spite of the civil decree in which the finding has been given that the decree holders are in possession of S.Nos.369/3, 370/3 and 371/5 and 371/7, the judgment debtors had violated the same. Besides, they had also obtained the letters from the Taluk Legal Aid Committee and committed an act of contempt based on the same. 9. Based on the other documents, viz., Ex.A.6 which is an order of injunction granted by this Court in M.P.(MD) No.2 of 2011 in W.P.(MD) No.2306 of 2011, the trial Court held that the act of the revision petitioners changing the patta in their names in spite of the decree of the Civil court was punishable. The trial Court also held that the revision petitioners had cut and removed the trees and trespassed into the suit property. Therefore, E.P was allowed and E.A for Police protection was also granted. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitions have been filed by the revision petitioners/contemnors. 10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the respondent. 11. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners contended that there was no opportunity given to him before the order of arrest and committing them to the civil prison. But from the acts of the revision petitioners, viz., the deliberate change of patta subsequent to the passing of the decree and attempted to trespass into the suit property, it is clear that the revision petitioners have committed an act of contempt by willfully disobeying the decree of the Court. 12. Admittedly, the judgment debtors had cut and removed the trees on the strength of the letter issued and by the Taluk Legal Aid Committee. Both the change of patta and the letter obtained by them from the Legal Aid Committee are subsequent to the passing of the decree which is confirmed in A.S.No.373 of 1993 on 14/11/1996. 13. By relying on 1990 (2) L.W – 98 (ARJUNA GOUNDER Vs. Both the change of patta and the letter obtained by them from the Legal Aid Committee are subsequent to the passing of the decree which is confirmed in A.S.No.373 of 1993 on 14/11/1996. 13. By relying on 1990 (2) L.W – 98 (ARJUNA GOUNDER Vs. GOVINDARAJU REDDIAR), the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners contended that in enforcement of a decree for injunction, two conditions have to be established, viz., (i). opportunity to the other party to obey and (ii). Willful failure to obey. 14. According to the learned counsel, an opportunity was not provided to him. Admittedly, the judgment debtor was a party to the proceeding and contested the suit. He had also preferred an appeal which also ended in the same result. Therefore, the judgment debtor is estopped from contending that he had no knowledge about the decree. When the judgment debtor being aware of the decree deliberately disobeyed the order cannot plead that he did not have an opportunity to obey the decree. 15. Having suffered a decree before the Civil Court, the judgment debtors had intentionally obtained a letter from the Taluk Legal Aid Committee and based on that strength had violated the decree of the Civil Court. Therefore, there was no reason in the petitioners contention that they did not have an opportunity to obey the decree. 16. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent placed his reliance on AIR 1981 MADRAS 354 (V.S.ALWAR AYYANGAR Vs. GURUSAMY THEVAR), wherein in paragraph No.23, it has been held as follows:- “It is true that in his counter affidavit, the judgment debtor had entered a flat denial of the decree holder's allegation that he obstructed the decree-holder and his servants on 6/1/1978, when they attempted to water the crop. But this bare denial of the decree holder's allegation must be read in the context of the judgment debtor's own positive stand that he it was who was in possession of the suit land. On his own showing, therefore, the judgment debtor had clearly admitted that he not only violated the terms of the injunction, but fairly wallowed in doing so.” 17. If a judgment-debtor had suffered a decree, no attempt to circumvent the perpetual injunction can be permitted. What is needed is an opportunity to obey the injunction. Despite having the opportunity, the non-compliance by the judgment debtors is a continuing disobedience entailing penal consequences. 18. If a judgment-debtor had suffered a decree, no attempt to circumvent the perpetual injunction can be permitted. What is needed is an opportunity to obey the injunction. Despite having the opportunity, the non-compliance by the judgment debtors is a continuing disobedience entailing penal consequences. 18. From the foregoing factual matrix, the evidence also shows that this is a clear case of willful disobedience in which the law must take its course. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, the said facts have been admitted by the revision petitioners in the counter affidavit that the order passed by the Legal Aid Committee was correct and denied the title and possession of the respondent. Even going by the records and the admissions made by the revision petitioners in the counter affidavit, it is crystal clear that the revision petitioners had committed an act of contempt and they are liable to be detained in civil prison. The consequential application viz., the Police protection also has been allowed by the trial Court which also has to be confirmed. So when the decree of the Court is disobeyed the machinery and remedy provided under Order 21 Rule 32 (i) of the Code of Civil Procedure is invoked, it is the duty of the Court also to punish the wrong doer. 19. In view of the above finding, there is no infirmity in the orders passed by the trial Court which requires any interference and the same is dismissed. 20. In the result, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed, confirming the order of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam, Pudukottai District in E.P.No.16 of 2011 in O.S.No.28 of 1988 and E.A.No.7 of 2011 in E.P.No.16 of 2011 in O.S.No.28 of 1988 dated 5/6/2013. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.