Arulmigu Kasi Viswanathar Thirukovil v. Paul Francis

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :14.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA in W.M.P(MD).No.19546 of 2024 in W.P.No(MD).23059 of 2024 Arulmighu Kasi Viswanathar Thirukovil, rep., by its Executive Officer, M.Jeya ... Petitioner Vs.

Paul Francis, Block Development Officer, Block Development Office, Arimalam Panchayat Union, Pudukkottai District.

... Respondent PRAYER: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to punish the contemnor/ 2nd respondent for his deliberate and wilful disobedience of the order of this Court made in W.M.P(MD).No.19546 of 2024 in W.P(MD).No.23059 of 2024 dated 27.09.2024. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Mathavan For Respondents : Mr.Ajmalkhan Additional Advocate General assisted by Mrs.S.Jeya Priya Government Advocate (Advt Commissioner) : Mr.K.R.Manimaran 1/4

O R D E R

This Contempt Petition has been filed to punish the contemnor/ 2nd respondent for his deliberate and wilful disobedience of the order of this Court made in W.M.P(MD).No.19546 of 2024 in W.P(MD).No.23059 of 2024 dated 27.09.2024.

2. Although this Court finds, prima facie, that the contemnor has flouted the order of this Court and proceeded with the construction despite the subsistence of an order of injunction, it is seen that, in the order which is the subject matter of contempt, the learned Judge has directed that no construction shall take place in the property of the temple. There appears, however, to be a dispute regarding the ownership of the property. Insofar as S.No.82/13 is concerned, the petitioner temple claims the same to be its property, whereas the respondent contends that it belongs to the panchayat.

3. Since there exists a disputed question of fact, it may not be appropriate for this Court to punish the contemnor for contempt at this stage. It is open to the temple to establish its rights in the manner known to law. 2/4

4. However, the Court would once again emphasis that the respondent has treated the order of this Court contumaciously by continuing with the construction despite knowledge of the same and without approching this Court for further order. Admittedly, the petition to vacate the order has been filed after the constructionswas completed. Recording the Court's displeasure, this Contempt Petition is closed. The Court also wishes to record its appreciation for the work done by Mr.K.R.Manimaran, learned Advocate Commissioner. 14.11.2025 NCC:yes/no Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no Rmk To Block Development Officer, Block Development Office, Arimalam Panchayat Union, Pudukkottai District.

3/4

P.T.ASHA, J.

Rmk in W.M.P(MD).No.19546 of 2024 in W.P.No(MD).23059 of 2024 14.11.2025 4/4