The judgment emphasizes that willful disobedience of a decree, including deliberate actions to circumvent injunctions, can lead to penal consequences, and the Court has a duty to punish the wrongdoer under the Code of Civil Procedure.

1. The judgment debtors in O.S.No.28 of 1988 are the revision petitioners.

2. The revision petitions are filed against orders passed

(i). in E.P.No.16 of 2011 in O.S.No.28 of 1988 on the file of the District Munsif, Thirumayam, allowing an application under Order 21 Rule 32 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure for punishing the revision petitioners herein for disobedience of the decree and

(ii). in E.A.No.7 of 2011 in E.P.No.16 of 2011 allowing the application seeking Police protection.

3. O.S.No.28 of 1988 was filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 3 from cutting and removing the trees and not indulge in illegal activities with respect to the suit property. The suit was decreed on 25/8/1993.

4. E.P.No.16 of 2011 was filed by the decree holder for the disobedience by the revision petitioners herein of the decree. The appeal filed in A.S.No.373 of 1993 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Pudukottai was also dismissed on 14/11/1996, confirming the decree. While so, the revision petitioners, suppressing all the above facts, changed the patta in their names and unnecessarily picked up quarrel with the decree holder. There was also a complaint given to the Sub-Collector, Pudukottai. Suppressing all the above facts, the revision petitioners had gone to Thirumayam Taluk Legal Aid Committee and obtained an order in letter No.196/11 dated 12/1/2011.

5. Pursuant to the said order with the aid of the Thirumayam Police, the judgment debtors had removed the grown up trees on the suit property on 22/3/2011. The decree holder immediately challenged the order of the Taluk Legal Aid Committee by way of a writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.2306 of 2011 and obtained an order of injunction. As the judgment debtors had willfully disobeyed the decree despite having knowledge about the same and changed the patta also in their names, they have committed an act of contempt. Hence the application under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the decree holder for sending the judgment debtors to civil prison.

6. The other application was filed for Police protection for the removal of the cut trees from the suit property.

7. The applications were challenged by the judgment debtors by filing their counter contending that they had not disobeyed the decree and denied the allegation of cutting and removing the trees.

8. The learned District-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam, who heard the applications categorically held that in spite of the civil decree in which the finding has been given that the decree holders are in possession of S.Nos.369/3, 370/3 and 371/5 and 371/7, the judgment debtors had violated the same. Besides, they had also obtained the letters from the Taluk Legal Aid Committee and committed an act of contempt based on the same.

9. Based on the other documents, viz., Ex.A.6 which is an order of injunction granted by this Court in M.P.(MD) No.2 of 2011 in W.P.(MD) No.2306 of 2011, the trial Court held that the act of the revision petitioners changing the patta in their names in spite of the decree of the Civil court was punishable. The trial Court also held that the revision petitioners had cut and removed the trees and trespassed into the suit property. Therefore, E.P was allowed and E.A for Police protection was also granted. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitions have been filed by the revision petitioners/contemnors.

10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the respondent.

11. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners contended that there was no opportunity given to him before the order of arrest and committing them to the civil prison. But from the acts of the revision petitioners, viz., the deliberate change of patta subsequent to the passing of the decree and attempted to trespass into the suit property, it is clear that the revision petitioners have committed an act of contempt by willfully disobeying the decree of the Court.

12. Admittedly, the judgment