Galaxia Enterprises v. Pratap Pierre Gerard De Condappa
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13.03.2024 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
1. Galaxia Enterprises (Reg. Partnership Firm vide No.227/2011) Rep. By Managing Partner, Mangalatchoumy, D/o.Appavou, Having office at No.9, Tennis Tower, 4th Main Road, Besant Nagar, Chennai - 600 090.
2. Mangalatchoumy (died), D/o.Mr.Appavou Managing Partner of Galaxia Enterprises, Having office at No.9, Tennis Tower, 4th Main Road, Besant Nagar, Chennai - 600 090.
3. Razendhiran Maleappane, S/o.Daniel Maleappane
4. Radjy Maleappane, Rep. By his Power Agent, Razendhiran Maleappane S/o.Daniel Maleappane, No.8, Rue Jacques Anquetil, 26000 - Valence, France.
5. Amouda Maleappane, Rep. By her Power Agent, Razendhiran Maleappane, No.42, Residence IesNouveaux Horizones, 1/5
78990- Elancourt, France.
... Petitioners vs.
1. Pratap Pierre Gerard De Condappa, S/o.Late Stanislaus Thambu De Condappa No.38, Dumas Street, Puducherry- 605 001.
2. Pierre Elouard, S/o.Lucien Elouard, Having Office in the name of M/s.Satsanga, No.25, Chand Sahib Street, Puducherry - 605 001.
..Respondents Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondents for having committed an act of contempt of the order dated 24.08.2023 passed by this Court in CRP.No.2240 of 2020.
For Petitioners :
Mr.C.Vigneswaran For Respondents :
Mr.R.Thiyagarajan [R1]
ORDER
This contempt petition has been filed for the purpose of punishing the respondents for having violated the orders of this Court dated 24.08.2023 passed in CRP.No.2240 of 2020.
2. In the said order in paragraph 13, I had directed the parties to 2/5
maintain status quo, which prevailed as on date with respect to the suit property.
3. Mr.C.Vigneswaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the first respondent has violated the order of status quo, hence constrained to file this contempt petition.
4. I have gone through the averments and I am satisfied that there is no such infringement necessitating the Court to initiate contempt proceedings as against the first respondent.
5. Mr.R.Thiyagarajan, learned counsel for first respondent has filed counter affidavit stating that prima facie finding has been passed by the Appellate Authority that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the contempt petitioners and the first respondent. He has also stated that instead of co-operating with the disposal of the suit in O.S.No.2347 of 2017, an application has been filed for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner and the proceedings had been dragged on without reaching its finality.
6. Pending proceeding, I called for a report from the learned 3/5
District Munsif Court at Puducherry. The I Additional District Munsif, Puducherry has sent a report stating that he has allowed the application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner on 12.03.2024.
7. Suffice it for the present to direct the learned District Munsif, Puducherry to dispose of the suit at the earliest and submit a report to this Court.
8. In the light of the above directions, this Contempt Petition is closed.
13.03.2024 Index:Yes/No mp To
1. The District Munsif Court, Puducherry.
4/5
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
mp 13.03.2024 5/5