T.S.Saravanan v. K.Rajagopal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 17-04-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI CONT P No. 827 of 2026 and CONT P No. 835 of 2026 T.S.Saravanan S/o, Sundaram, D.No.20/2, Malaikavalor Kovil Street, Tiruchengode Town, Namakkal District - 211.

..Petitioner(s) Vs D.NO.9, Old Velur Road, Valaraigate, Karattupalayam at Namakkal District - 209.

..Contemnor(s) To punish the respondent herein for committing contempt of the order of this high court dated 31.07.2025 in c.m.a.no. 2099 of 2025 For Petitioner(s):

N.Jayakkumar, S. Sivasankar S.A. Mangai M. Sudha P. Bhuvanesh Memo Filed On Behalf Of The Petitioner Filed On 16.04.2026 For Contemnor(s):

Vakalat Filed By M/s.Sudharshana Sundar, E.Balamurugan, V.Ramesh, D.Saravana Kumar, Counsel For The Respondent Filed On 08.04.2026

CONT P No. 835 of 2026 T.S.Saravanan S/o. Sundaram, D.No.20/2, Malaikavalor Kovil Street, Tiruchengode Town, Namakkal District - 637 211.

..Petitioner(s) Vs D.No.9, Old Velur Road, Valaraigate, Karattupalayam @ Namakkal District - 637 209.

..Contemnor(s) CONT P No. 835 of 2026 To punish the respondent herein for committing contempt of the order of this high court dated 31.07.2025 in C.M.A.No. 2098 of 2025 CONT P No. 835 of 2026 For Petitioner(s):

N.Jayakkumar, S.Siva Sankar, S.A.Mangai, M.Sudha, P.Bhuvanesh For Contemnor(s):

Vakalat Filed By M/s.Sudharshana Sundar, E.Balamurugan, V.Ramesh, D.Saravana Kumar, Counsel For The Respondent Filed On 08.04.2026 Common Order As per the earlier order of this Court, Shop Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 were allotted to the petitioner, and the remaining Shop Nos. 1, 2 and 7 to 10 were allotted to the respondents.

2. When the matter was taken up, the petitioner submitted that the respondents are causing interference, due to which he is unable to lease out the shops or induct new tenants. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents denied the said allegation and contended that the respondents have not caused any interference; instead, it is the petitioner who is entering the backside portion of the property allotted to the respondents and causing disturbance.

3. Thus, both parties have made allegations against each other. In order to avoid further complications, this Court is of the view that the revision petitioner may be permitted to install CCTV cameras in the portion allotted to him, for which the respondents have expressed no objection.

4. The respondents have also stated that they have no objection to the petitioner inducting new tenants in the portions allotted to him, subject to the outcome of the suit.

5. It is further observed that the portions allotted to the respondents are situated on the backside, whereas the portions allotted to the petitioner are on the front side. Therefore, both parties are directed not to interfere with each other's peaceful possession and enjoyment of their respective portions. The petitioner shall not enter the backside portion allotted to the respondents.

T.V.THAMILSELVI J.

JRS

5. With the above observations, it is reiterated that the order passed by this Court on 31.07.2025 shall be strictly followed by the parties in letter and spirit. In the result, these contempt petitions are closed. No costs. 17-04-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order JRS To D.NO.9, Old Velur Road, Valaraigate, Karattupalayam at Namakkal District - 209.

CONT P No. 827 of 2026 and CONT P No. 835 of 2026