AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Kanakaraj, J.—This Contempt Application is to punish the respondents for having committed contempt of Court in trying to circumvent the
decree in O.S. No. 135 of 1993 and nullify the effect of the decree therein by instituting several other proceedings in this Court as well as in the
Civil Court. The facts of the case are as follows:
The petitioners and four others filed O.S. No. 135 of 1993 against ""respondents 1 and 2 herein as defendants, seeking a declaration that the
plaintiffs, representing the worshippers of the Arulmigu Sevuga Perumal Ayanar Temple at Sithakur, are entitled to perform the ''Laksharchana
worship'' in the temple and to injunct Respondents 1 and 2 from obstructing the conduct of such ''Laksharchana Worship. The decree was granted
on 29.7.1994. There is no dispute that the decree has become final. The first respondent is the hereditary trustee of the temple. The second
respondent is the Executive Officer and the third respondent is, actually the person, occupying the office of the Executive Officer. In other words,
the second and third respondents are one and the same. The fourth respondent is a third party in the sense that he was not a party in the said suit,
O.S. No. 135 of 1993. The case of the applicants is that respondents 1 and 2 have instigated the fourth respondent to initiate proceedings in such
manner that the decree in O.S. No. 135 of 1993 will be nullified. It is further alleged that the fourth respondent is in fact a fictitious person.
Let us now look at the number of proceedings filed by the fourth respondent and supported by respondents 1 and 2. The first is a Writ Petition
No. 3934 of 1996, seeking a writ of mandamus to forbear respondents 1 and 2 (defendants in O.S. No. 135 of 1993) from permitting
respondents 4 to 8 (plaintiffs O.S. No. 135 of 1993) from performing poojas and other activities in the temple. It goes without saying that the
prayer in the writ petition is directly in conflict with the decree obtained in OS. No. 135 of 1993. However, when the writ petition was taken up
for admission on 24.4.1996, it is admitted that the names of respondents 4 to 9 were deleted from the array of parties. The second proceeding
initiated by the fourth respondent is by way of filing a suit O.S. No. 94 of 1996, on the file of the District Munsif, Aranthangi. This suit has been
filed only by the fourth respondent and the defendants are only the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department and the Executive Officer of
the Temple(second respondent). The prayer is to restrain the defendants from allowing the individuals to interfere with the conduct of
Laksharchana worship and poojas by selling tickets and receiving offerings from the general public. It is clear mat this suit was also intended to
nullify the decree in O.S. No. 135 of 1993. The said suit has subsequently been withdrawn before the contempt application was filed. The
contention of the applicants is that the respondents are interfering with the course of justice and have thus committed contempt of Court.
While issuing notice on the Contempt Application, this Court wanted to verify the correctness of the allegation that the fourth respondent is a
fictitious person. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, the respondents have in fact produced the fourth-respondent in Court and he has signed
before this Court to indicate that he is not a fictitious person. In fact, in his counter affidavit, he says that he is a poojari by caste and plays the drum
during festive occasions. He denies the allegation that he is a tool in the hands of first and second respondents and that he had filed the suits only
for the purpose of safeguarding the interests of the temple and the general public. According to him. the applicants collect huge amounts of money
by way of sale of tickets for the Laksharchana worship and that was precisely the reason why they obtained a decree in O.S. No. 135 of 1993.
While stating that the scope for the proceedings initiated by him is different from O.S. No. 135 of 1993, he also tenders unconditional apology in
the following words:
I am having highest regard to the Court of law and I am a faithful servant at the hand of this Honourable Court. I had no intention to degrade the
authority of any Court and I am expressing my unconditional apology for whatever happened earlier..
The first respondent has also filed a counter affidavit saying that he is the hereditary trustee of the temple and he is not aware of any of the
proceedings initiated by the fourth respondent. He is only concerned with the performance of the pooja in the temple. The second and third
respondents being the Executive Officers of the temple, also deny that they had instigated the fourth respondent to file the writ petition and the suit
to nullify the decree in O.S. No. 135 of 1993. He, however, says that the fourth-respondent had met him and complained that the applicants
should not be allowed to collect the money from the general public, as they were misappropriating the money for their own personal benefits. He
further says that because of the decree in O.S. No. 135 of 1993 he was helpless.
Learned counsel for the applicants has cited before us various decisions to suggest that the act of the respondent, and in particular, that of the
fourth respondent amounts to gross contempt of Court and abuse of process of Law by suppression of the decree in O.S. No. 135 of 1993. We
do not propose to refer to any of those decisions because the proposition of law cannot be disputed. The only question is whether the facts of the
case, as disclosed in the affidavit of the applicants and the counter affidavits filed by the respondents do establish that the respondents have
committed any act of contempt. One thing is very clear from the pleadings viz., that there is collection of huge amounts of money during the
Laksharchana worship. As in all cases, where huge amount of money is involved or there is a chance for collection of considerable amount of
money, there are always disputes between parties to appropriate or misappropriate such amounts We do not want to say anything further on this
aspect of the case, except to observe that parties are fighting only on account of such money and not really on account of the respect for the Court.
It is not uncommon in these days that litigations are filed and proceedings are taken, by suppressing crucial facts or earlier decrees and orders. In
this case, the applicants do not dispute that they have not in any way been prevented from executing the decree in O.S. No. 135 of 1993.
Coming to the conduct of the fourth-respondent, we have absolutely no doubt in our mind that the prayers sought for in Writ Petition No. 4519
of 1996 and in O.S. No. 94 of 1996, to which we have already made a reference clearly show that an attempt had been made to nullify the decree
in O.S. No. 135 of 1993. The attempt of the fourth respondent was clearly to prevent the applicants and the other plaintiffs in O.S. No. 135 of
1993 from collecting money for the ''Laksharchana Worship'' and conducting the same. The fact that subsequently, the names of the plaintiffs were
deleted in Writ Petition No. 4915 of 1996 and the fact that O.S. No. 94 of 1996 was subsequently withdrawn do not in any way mitigate the
fraudulent intention of the fourth respondent to prevent the applicants from performing the ''Laksharchana Worship"", in spite of the decree in O.S.
No. 135 of 1993. The apology tendered by the fourth respondent is not unconditional and in fact, he has made all attempts to justify the action
taken by him. We therefore, hold the fourth respondent guilty of Contempt of Court in initiating proceedings by suppressing the earlier decree in
O.S. No. 135 of 1993. We are aware of the fact that the fourth respondent was not a party to O.S. No. 135 of 1993. But all the same, we have
no doubt in our mind that he being a poojari should have been aware of the correct facts. That apart, he had in fact impleaded the plaintiffs in Writ
Petition No. 4519 of 1996 and subsequently deleted their names. He would not have impleaded the plaintiffs, unless he was aware of the decree.
What is more, the counter affidavit of the second respondent, Executive Officer falsifies the case of the first respondent, because it is stated by him
that the fourth respondent had met him and complained about the collection of funds by the applicants. We are however, of the opinion that the
subsequent conduct of the fourth respondent shows that he need not be sent to prison and a sentence of fine will meet the ends of justice. In this
view of the matter, we impose a fine of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) on the fourth respondent.
So far as the first respondent is concerned, he being a hereditary trustee and there being no proof that he had instigated the fourth-respondent,
he is absolved. The second respondent should have been more careful because his counter affidavit does suggest that the fourth respondent had
met him and he did not take any action because of the decree in O.S. No. 135 of 1993. However, there is no proof to show that he had instigated
the fourth respondent in filing the suit, O.S. No. 94 of 1996 or Writ Petition No. 4519 of 1996. We therefore, administer a severe warning on the
third respondent to be more careful in future in dealing with decrees of Court.
We impose a fine of Rs. 500/- ( Rupees Five Hundred only) on the fourth respondent, Nallathambi, which shall be payable by him on or before
31st August, 1997. The cost of this Application shall also have to be borne by the fourth respondent and the fee is fixed at Rs. 12,000/-. In the
event of the fourth respondent not paying the fine amount, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks. Respondents 1 to 3 are
discharged. The Contempt Application is ordered in the above terms. The connected sub Application is dismissed.