Madras High CourtCONT P/1179/2021closed

R.Devasena v. Lakshmana Kumar

2022-01-21Honourable Mr Justice V. Bharathidasan3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 21.01.2022

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

1. R. Devasena

2. R. Varshini

3. R. Sudharshan ... Petitioners All are residing at New No.35, Old No.17, Ayyaba Street, Vetri Nagar, Chennai 600 082 Vs.

1. Lakshmana Kumar, The Assistant Revenue Officer, Corporation of Chennai, Zone -6, No.5, Anderson Salai, Ayyanavaram, Chennai 600 023.

2. B.M.Kotteeswara Rao, New No.26, Old No.20, Ramasamy Street, Vetri Nagar, Chennai 600 082 ... Respondents PRAYER : Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 to punish the respondents for willfully disobeying the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.21028 of 2018 dated 19.09.2018 . For Petitioner : Mrs. Bhuvaneswari, for A.R.Nixon.

For Respondents : Mr.R. Gopinath, Standing counsel for Corporation for R1 : Mr. Leelaraman, for R2

ORDER

Earlier, this Court, by an order dated : 19.09.2018 in W.P.No.21028 of 2018, directed the first respondent to conduct enquiry on the representation given by the petitioners and pass suitable orders, on merits, on considering the judgment and decree passed by the civil Court.

2. Alleging that, the above order has not been complied with, the present contempt petition has been filed.

3. Earlier, when the matter was taken up for hearing, it was submitted that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, enquiry was conducted by the first respondent and parties appeared before the first respondent and submitted that against the order, review application has been filed and hence, they postponed the enquiry.

4. Considering the above fact, this Court, by an order dated 04.01.2022, directed the Corporation to conduct enquiry and pass suitable orders after hearing both the parties and adjourned the matter today.

5. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent/Corporation submitted

that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, enquiry notice has been issued to both the petitioners as well as the 2nd respondent. Even though, 2nd respondent appeared for enquiry for two hearings, the petitioners have not appeared and hence, they are not in a position to pass any orders.

6. Considering the submission that it is only the petitioners did not appear for enquiry, the first respondent is directed to give one more chance to the petitioners and if the petitioners failed to appear, the first respondent is directed to pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7. With the above direction, this Contempt petition is closed. SD/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(COMM.CASES) mrp //Certified to be true copy// Dated at Madras this the day of 2022. COURT OFFICER(O.S.) from 25th day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing Certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

GS/16/02/2022