Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 4384
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. HARIPARANTHAMAN
T.A. Dakshayani & Another
Versus
P.Chengiah & Others
O.S.A.Nos.22 to 24 & 29 to 31 of 2009
Decided On :Decided on : 08-11-2011
For the Appellants:T.R. Rajagopal, Senior Counsel for T.V. Krishnamachari, Advocate.
For the Respondents - R1 to R5 -A.R.L. Sundaresan, Senior Counsel for M/s. Rugan & Arya, Advocate.
The court emphasized the binding nature of orders passed by judges and the discretion of the court in allowing participation in proceedings to a contemnor.
Headnote:
Contempt of Court - Sale Agreement - Civil Procedure Code - [Contempt of Court] - [Sale Agreement] - [Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code, Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code] - The court discussed the application of Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code and Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code in the context of a sale agreement and contempt of court. The court highlighted the binding nature of orders passed by judges and the discretion of the court in allowing participation in proceedings to a contemnor.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over a sale agreement for a property in Chennai. The respondents sought to set aside a sale deed executed by the sixth respondent in favor of the appellant, alleging violation of an injunction order. The court also considered the issue of whether the contempt petition could be heard along with the main suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the learned Single Judge had exceeded his jurisdiction by decreeing the suit in the proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code. The court set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and restored the applications to the file of the learned Single Judge for disposal.
Issues: The issues included whether the learned Single Judge was correct in deciding the application in A.No.517 of 2004, while two other learned Judges posted the same along with the suit, and whether the learned Judge was correct in setting aside the sale or in declaring the sale deed dated 10.07.2003 executed by the sixth respondent in favor of the appellant as null and void while deciding the contempt petition under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of Civil Procedure Code, thereby in effect decreeing the suit in C.S.No.128 of 2006, without hearing the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the learned Single Judge had exceeded his jurisdiction by decreeing the suit in the proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code. The court also emphasized the binding nature of orders passed by judges and the discretion of the court in allowing participation in proceedings to a contemnor.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, and the order of the learned Single Judge was set aside. The applications in O.A.Nos.517 of 2004, 3738 and 3741 of 2008 were restored to the file of the learned Single Judge for disposal, with a request to take them up along with the suits for decision. All the issues were left open for decision by the learned Judge in the suits.
D.HARIPARANTHAMAN, J.
1. The appellant in O.S.A.Nos.22 to 24 of 2009 is a third party to the suit in C.S.No.1843 of 1994. The respondents 1 to 5 are the plaintiffs in C.S.No.1843 of 1994 and the sixth respondent is the defendant in the said suit.
2. The appellant in O.S.A.Nos.29 to 31 of 2009 is the defendant in C.S.No.1843 of 1994 and respondents 1 to 5 are the plaintiffs in the said suit.
3. The parties are referred to as per the cause title in O.S.A.Nos.22 to 24 of 2009.
4. The brief facts leading to the filing of these appeals are as follows:
(i) One Ms.Banupriya entered into an agreement of sale with the sixth respondent on 08.11.1990, with respect to some properties at T.Nagar, Chennai. Ms.Banupriya filed a suit in C.S.No.1142 of 1992 seeking specific performance of the sale agreement dated 08.11.1990 referred to above and the sixth respondent is the defendant therein. The parties to the suit compromised and a compromise decree was passed on 30.01.2003. As per the compromise decree, the sixth respondent, who is the defendant in C.S.No.1142 of 1992 has to execute a sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of Ms.Banupriya or her nominee. Accordingly, the sixth respondent executed a sale deed dated 10.07.2003 in favour of the appellant, who is the nominee of Ms.Banupriya.
(ii) The respondents 1 to 5 entered into an agreement of sale with the sixth respondent on 15.02.1993, with respect to the same property.
(iii) The respondents 1 to 5 also filed a suit in C.S.No.1843 of 1994 seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 15.02.1993. The respondents 1 to 5 obtained an order of injunction on 29.02.1996 in O.A.Nos.636 and 637 of 1995 in C.S.No.1843 of 1994.
(iv) In these circumstances, the respondents 1 to 5 have filed another suit in C.S.No.128 of 2006 against the appellant, the sixth respondent and Ms.Banupriya seeking to declare the sale deed dated 10.07.2003 executed by the sixth respondent in favour of the appellant, as void and invalid and also sought consequential injunction restraining the appellant from entering upon or occupying any portion of the suit property on the basis of the said sale deed or by interfering with the water or electricity connection to the suit property or by making any alienation or encumbrance regarding the suit property. The respondents have also obtained an order of interim injunction on 22.02.2006 in O.A.No.135 of 2006 in C.S.No.128 of 2006 restraining the appellant herein from acting upon the sale deed dated 10.07.2003.
(v) While so, the respondents 1 to 5 filed an application in A.No.517 of 2004 in O.A.Nos.636 and 637 of 1995 in C.S.No.1843 of 1994 invoking Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code for attaching the suit property and also for detention of the sixth respondent in civil prison for disobeying the order of injunction granted by this Court on 29.02.1996 in O.A.Nos.636 and 637 of 1995 in C.S.No.1843 of 1994.
(vi) The sixth respondent has filed a counter affidavit in the aforesaid A.No.517 of 2004 in February 2004 itself. The respondents 1 to 5 have filed reply affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by the sixth respondent in A.No.517 of 2004.
(vii) In the meantime, the suit in C.S.No.1843 of 1994 was posted for trial on 20.04.2007, which was listed before the Additional Master for recording evidence. Proof affidavit of P.W.1 in C.S.No.1843 of 1994 was filed on 03.01.2008 and exhibits P1 to P19 were marked and the matter was adjourned to 09.01.2008 for cross examination of
P.W.1.
(viii) While so, on 09.01.2008, the respondents 1 to 5 filed a memo stating that the sixth respondent is not entitled to cross examine P.W.1 until the sixth respondent is purged herself of the contempt in A.No.517 of 2004 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code.
(ix) Hence, the Additional Master posted the matter before the Court. Accordingly, A.No.517 of 2004 was listed before the Court on 25.01.2008.
(x) In these circumstances, t
