B.K.K. Pillai and Others vs D. Muthukrishnan and Others etc. etc.

Heard all the parties.

These appeals are directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 3.3.1999 in Contempt Petition No. 530 of 1997 preferred by the

first respondent in all the above appeals, whereunder, the first respondent initiated contempt proceedings against the appellants in these appeals for

the alleged wilful disobedience of the orders passed in Crl.O.P. No. 8582 of 1992 dated 17.8.92.

3.1. Concededly, a civil suit, viz., O.S. No. 2125 of 1991 filed by the first respondent herein, is pending before the learned District Munsif,

Poonamallee, for an injunction restraining the appellants herein from interfering with the first respondent''s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the

suit property to an extent of 1.42 acres mentioned thereunder and pending the said suit, ad-interim injunction was also granted in I.A. No. 2842 of

1991 and it was also made absolute on 14.9 .92.

3.2. Pending the above said suit, the first respondent herein moved this Court by filing Crl.O.P. No. 13874 of 1991 seeking a direction to the

Inspector of Police, Adambakkam Police Station, Adambakkam, to provide police protection to him. In the said petition, Justice. Pratap Singh, by

an order dated 6.4.92, finding that already a petition seeking for police aid is pending before the trial Court, observed that the trial Court shall

decide it on merits and accordingly, dismissed the petition, as a direction as prayed for in the said petition could not be given.

3.3. In spite of the above order dated 6.4.92, the first respondent herein again moved Crl.O.P. No. 6005 of 1992 before this Court with a similar

prayer and the said petition was dismissed on 8.6.92 by the Hon''ble Justice Arumugam, permitting the first respondent to move the District Munsif

Court at Poonamallee.

3.4. Within two months thereafter, the first respondent again moved this Court by filing Crl.O.P. No. 8582 of 1992 for a similar direction to the

Superintendent of Police, Chengalpattu M.G.R. District and the Inspector of Police, Adambakkam Police Station, with a further prayer to

implement the order of injunction granted in I.A. No. 2842 of 1991 in O.S. No. 2125 of 1991 against the obstructers .Justice Swamidurai, by an

order dated 17.8.1992, construing the observation of Justice Pratap Singh made in the order dated 6.4.92 in Crl.O.P. No. 13874 of 199 1 as a

direction and finding that the police failed to provide police protection to the first respondent, allowed the said petition by directing the police to

give police protection. The learned Judge had also directed the learned District Munsif, Poonamallee, to dispose of such applications at the earliest

without keeping it pending.

3.5. Complaining that the said order dated 17.8.92 was disobeyed by the appellants herein and by the second and third respondents, viz., the

Superintendent of Police and the Inspector of Police, the first respondent moved Contempt Application No. 530 of 1997, whereunder the learned

single Judge of this Court, by order dated 3.3.99, directed the appellants herein to vacate the property, viz., 1 acre 42 cents referred to in Crl.O.P.

No. 13874 of 1991 and hand over the possession to the petitioner therein, who is the first respondent herein, with a further direction to dismantle

the entire structure, within 15 days from the date of the order, viz., 3.3.99 and if they failed to do so, giving further directions to respondents 1 and

2 therein, namely, the Superintendent of Police and the Inspector of Police, to see that the possession of the property is restored to its original

position and if not, the respondents therein shall be liable to be punished under Contempt of Courts Act.

3.6. In the same order dated 3.3.99 of the learned single Judge made in the Contempt Petition, it is also observed that pendency of applications

filed under Order 39 Rule 2A of C.P.C. for the alleged violation of the order of interim injunction, would not be a bar for entertaining the present

contempt petition. On the other hand, Hon''ble Justice Swamidurai, in the order dated 17.8.92, finding that the learned District Munsif,

Poonamallee, has not disposed of the application already filed for police protection, observed that the learned District Munsif shall not keep such

applications in future without passing any orders.

3.6. It is, therefore, apparent on the face of record that in the order dated 17.8.92, there was a direction to dispose of the application made under

Order 39 Rule 2A, on the other hand, in the order dated 3.3.99 made in the contempt petition, the learned single Judge has observed that the

pendency of such application will not be a bar to initiate contempt proceedings.

In view of the contradictions, viz., 1) the direction to the learned District Munsif, Poonamallee, by order dated 17.8.92 to dispose of the

application filed for police protection, and 2) the direction to the police by order dated 3.3.99 to give protection to the first respondent, we are of

the considered opinion that the finding of the learned single Judge that the refusal of the police to give protection is intentional and the further

directions as contained in para 30 of the order, viz., i) to hand over the possession of the property and ii) to demolish the same within a time frame,

would not sustain, as the same shall be subject to the finality to be reached in the proceedings pending before the learned District Munsif,

Poonamallee.

Therefore, on going through the orders referred to above, we do not see any wilful disobedience on the part of the appellants to hold that they

have committed contempt of the order dated 17.8.92 made in Crl.O.P. No. 8582 of 1992 and accordingly, we set aside the order of the learned

single Judge dated 3.3.99 and allow the appeals. Since, we are of the view that the first respondent has moved this Court on several occasions,

viz., in the months of April, June and August, 1992 , which is nothing but an abuse of process of Court, we are inclined to award costs at the rate

of Rs. 1,000/- in each case.