Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 960
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
N. KIRUBAKARAN, J.
P. Sankaran
Versus
R. Somanathan through its Partners & Others
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No. 2423 of 2008
Decided On : 22-05-2014
For the Petitioner: In-person.
For the Respondents:G. Prabhu Rajadurai, M.P. Senthil, Advocates.
The Court emphasized the need to curtail misuse and abuse of the legal process and held that while the Civil Court may not have jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, it can invoke inherent powers under Section 151 of the CPC to prevent abuse of the process of law.
Headnote:
Contempt of Court - City Tenants’ Protection Act - Section 9, Contempt of Courts Act - [FACT OF THE CASE] This case involves a dispute over a property in Tuticorin, with multiple legal proceedings spanning several decades. The Petitioner's father, a tenant, sought to purchase the land under the City Tenants’ Protection Act, leading to a series of legal battles and appeals. The Respondent obtained an interim injunction against the Petitioner, leading to allegations of misrepresentation and contempt of court. [FINDING OF THE COURT] The Trial Court found the Respondent guilty of contempt of court for obtaining the injunction through misrepresentation and deliberate misuse, and imposed a fine of Rs.2,000. The Appellate Court set aside the contempt order, citing lack of jurisdiction for the Civil Court to exercise powers under the Contempt of Courts Act. [ISSUES] The main issues revolved around the validity of the injunction obtained by the Respondent and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to invoke the Contempt of Courts Act. [RATIO DECIDENDI] The Trial Court's attempt to invoke the Contempt of Courts Act was not supported by law, but it was appreciated as an endeavor to render justice. The Court held that while the Civil Court may not have jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, it can invoke inherent powers under Section 151 of the CPC to prevent abuse of the process of law. The Court emphasized the need to curtail misuse and abuse of the legal process. [FINAL DECISION] The Court set aside the Appellate Court's order, allowed the Petitioner's petition, and enhanced the fine from Rs.2,000 to Rs.50,000, to be paid to the Petitioner within two weeks.
1. This Revision has been filed against the Order passed by the Appellate Court dismissing the Contempt Application filed by the Petitioner and setting aside the Order passed against the Respondent for Contempt of Court by imposing a sum of Rs.2,000/- as fine.
2. Father of the Petitioner, one Petchimuthu Asari, was a Tenant in respect of the vacant land in Door No.309, Palayamkottai Road, Tuticorin. The vacant site, originally belonged to Gunavel, under whom the father of the Petitioner became a lessee in the year 1942 and thereafter he put up a shed in the site and was carrying on carpentry work.
3. Subsequently the respondent purchased the property on 27.2.1974 and filed O.S.No.400 of 1974 for ejectment of the father of the Petitioner. In the said Suit, the father of the Petitioner took out an Application in I.A.No.1241 of 1974 under Section 9 of the City Tenants’ Protection Act for a direction to the Respondent/Landlord to sell the Schedule property (vacant site). The said Application was contested by the Respondent and the Trial Court by Order dated 29.9.1975 held that the Petitioner’s father Petchimuthu Asari was entitled to the benefit under the City Tenants’ Protection Act and entitled to purchase the land.
4. A Review Application in I.A.No.1448 of 1975 was filed by the Respondent and the Trial Court reviewed the earlier order and held that the City Tenants’ Protection Act is not applicable to the building put up prior to 25.6.1975, as the said Act was made applicable to Tuticorin Town, only with effect from 25.6.1995. As a result, Section 9 Application filed in I.A.No.1244 of 1974 was dismissed. Against the dismissal of I.A.No.1244 of 1974, C.M.A., No.5 of 1976 was filed and the Appeal was allowed, holding that the Petchimuthu Asari was entitled to the benefit of the Act and remanded the matter to determine the market value of the site payable by Petchimuthu Asari. The said Order passed in C.M.A.No.5 of 1976 was challenged unsuccessfully by the Respondent in C.R.P.No.1118 of 1977 which was dismissed on 6.5.1980.
5. After the demise of Petchimuthu Asari, the Petitioner and the other Legal Heirs were impleaded. Challenging the Order passed in …No.1118 of 1977, the Respondent filed C.A.No.1383 of 1984 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same was dismissed on 14.10.1992.
6. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed I.A.No.1809 of 1994 before the Trial Court claiming that the land in question is a Government Poramboke land and the Petitioner is in possession of the land for more than 30 years and got the title by adverse possession and there was no necessity to deposit the amount towards the value of the site. Subsequently the said Application was dismissed as not pressed. In view of the denial of title of the Respondent by the Petitioner, I.A.No.1241 of 1974 filed under Section 9(1) of the City Tenants’ Protection Act was dismissed by the Trial Court on 25.3.1994. The said Order of the Dismissal was challenged by the Petitioner in C.M.A.No.9 of 1996, which was allowed on 12.9.1996 with a direction to dispose of the I.A.No.1241 of 1974. The order in C.M.A.No.9 of 1996 was challenged in C.R.P.No.2868 of 1996 unsuccessfully by the Respondent and the Revision was dismissed on 12.2.1997. This Court held in the said order that the order that the order of remand was restricted the scope of enquiry and the Petitioner herein is entitled to the benefit of the City Tenants’ Protection Act and only to decide the market value of the property, the remand was made.
7. Thereafter, the Trial Court allowed the I.A.No.1244 of 1974 on 18.7.2001 and determined the market value at Rs.13,058/-, which was directed to be deposited by the Petitioner within one month from 18.7.2001.
8. The order made in I.A.No.1241 of 1974 for selling the vacant site under Section 9 of the City Tenants’ Protection Act was assailed in CMA.No.11 of 2001 by the Respondent and the same was dismissed on 24.1.2002. On Challenge, the said Order was confirmed in CRP
