C.Thumbanayagam, v. Mr.V.Vetrivel,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Orders Reserved on : 07.09.2018 Orders Pronounced on : 14.09.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH Cont.P.No.2879 of 2016 C.Thumbanayagam .. Petitioner Vs.
Mr.V.Vetrivel, Thasildhar, Villupuram.
.. Respondent Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the respondent for the disobedience of the order of this Court in W.P.No.9253 of 2016, dated 16.03.2016.
For petitioner : Mr.N.Suresh For respondent : Mr.J.Purushothaman, Govt. Advocate
ORDER
This Contempt Petition is filed by the petitioner to punish the respondent for not complying with the order of this Court, dated 16.03.2016 passed in W.P.No.9253 of 2016.
2. By the said order dated 16.03.2016, this Court directed as follows:
"8. Considering the grievance of the petitioner that the documents produced by him in "A" register was not properly considered by the second respondent before passing the impugned order, hence, in the
interest of justice, I am of the opinion by setting aside the impugned order passed by the second respondent, the matter could be remitted back for fresh consideration.
Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the second respondent for fresh consideration. The second respondent is directed to consider "A" register copy produced by the petitioner and pass a fresh speaking order on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner as well as to the third respondent as well as to the other necessary parties.
9. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs."
Since the abovesaid order has not been complied with, the present Contempt Petition has been filed.
3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that after receipt of a copy of the abovesaid order, the petitioner made a representation on 24.06.2016 along with a copy of the "A" Register to the respondent directly, but the respondent has not passed any order within the specified time fixed by this Court. Hence, this Contempt Petition is filed by the petitioner.
4. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent, by filing a detailed counter affidavit of the respondent, submitted that by considering the "A" Register, an order dated 04.10.2016 was passed by the respondent and thus the respondent has complied with the order of this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said order was passed by the respondent without considering the "A" Register, and therefore, there is disobedience on the part of the respondent in complying with the order of this Court. In view of this submission made by the petitioner, this Court directed the respondent to file counter, which is filed as observed above.
6. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, enquiry was conducted on 01.06.2016 and in the said enquiry, the petitioner and one Mr.Anbalagan, son of Mr.Kanna Gounder and Mr.Kaliyaperumal, son of Mr.Adhimoolam appeared for the enquiry.
Mr.K.Ramamoorthy, son of Mr.Kaliyaperumal produced a letter with documents pertaining to Survey No.119/1 and documents with regard to Survey No.118/2 were also produced by Mr.Anbalagan. Subsequent to the enquiry, the respondent came to the conclusion that wrong entries were made in the "A" Register due to wrong information given by some other person and the petitioner's name was mistakenly entered in the "A" Register. Taking advantage of the wrong entry made in the "A" Register, without filing any supportive documents to substantiate his claim, the petitioner is claiming title over the property without his physical possession. But, in contra, the said Anbalagan produced the parent documents with regard to Survey No.118/2, and hence, the petitioner's name was removed from
the "A" Register and patta was issued in the name of Kanna Gounder and two others through RTR.No.56/2004, dated 16.06.2004 in Patta No.278. Hence, according to the respondent, the order of this Court has been complied with.
7. In view of the above submissions made by the respondent in the counter affidavit, and as the order of this Court has been complied with as per the direction of this Court, dated 16.03.2016 passed in W.P.No.9253 of 2016, whereas, according to the petitioner, the "A" Register was not considered, but according to the respondent, the "A" Register was considered and the petitioner's name was removed from the "A" Register, this Court cannot conduct roving enquiry in the Contempt Petition with regard to the disputed facts.
8. Thus, it is clear that the order of this Court had been complied with. The only remedy open for the petitioner is to approach the Civil Court, if there is any grievance. Since no contempt is made out, the Contempt Petition is closed.
SD/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(COMM.CASES) cs //Certified to be true copy// Dated at Madras this the day of 2018. COURT OFFICER(O.S.) from 25th day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing Certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.
To The Thasildhar, Villupuram.
One cc to Govt. Pleader, SR.NO.13318 one cc to Mr.N.Suresh, Sr.No.13299