Breach of an undertaking given before a court constitutes civil contempt, emphasizing the expectation of compliance from advocates. Serious contempt calls for punishment to reinforce respect for judicial authority.

ORDER :

(N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.)

These Contempt Petitions arise out of breach of undertaking given by the contemnor before this Court to vacate the subject premises on or before 31.05.2025 and also for disobeying the orders of this Court in C.R.P.Nos.1773 & 1775 of 2024, dated 08.11.2024.

2.Before delving into these Contempt Petitions, the following facts are necessary for the disposal of these Contempt Petitions :

2.1.The contemnor is a practising Advocate of Madras High Court and other Courts. He is also said to have held many posts in the Bar Association. Rent control proceedings were initiated against him by the contempt petitioner, in R.C.O.P.Nos.1317 & 1318 of 2015 on the file of the XIII Court of Small Causes, Chennai, for eviction. In the counter and additional counter filed by the contemnor in the rent control proceedings, his induction as a tenant to the premises, namely, Ground Floor, First Floor and Second Floor, is not disputed by the contemnor. Be that as it may, the contemnor has not conducted the rent control proceedings and he tried to protract the proceedings to the maximum extent. He has filed several litigations and also applications, one after another, to protract the rent control proceedings filed by the petitioner. Factual aspects in this regard have been lucidly recorded by this Court in C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.1773 & 1775 of 2024, by order dated 08.11.2024, and in fact, in Para No.19 of the said order, this Court has recorded the number of applications filed in the rent control proceedings by the contemnor to delay and protract the proceedings, apart from several litigations.

2.2.It is relevant to note that the conduct of the contemnor has been deprecated not once, but on various occasions by various learned Single Judges of this Court. Certain observations made by this Court in various proceedings against the conduct of the contemnor, are relevant to this contempt proceedings also. Therefore, this Court extracts the same as under :

2.2.1.In one of the proceedings initiated by the contemnor before the Division Bench of this Court in Rev.Appl.SR.Nos.67110, 67105 & 67143 of 2017, this Court, vide judgment dated 01.08.2018, recorded the following findings :

“15.Therefore, this Court even otherwise does not see any merit in the grounds raised in the review petition as the order passed by the Division Bench is comprehensive and take care of the interest of the parties. In any event, in the guise of filing the review petition, the petitioner is only attempting to wriggle out the instructions presumsed to be given to his Advocate at the time when original side appeals were disposed of. Moreover the grounds as raised in the review petition do not satisfy the parameters laid down in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and also various rulings of the Court on the subject matter. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the present review petition is nothing but, another attempt by the review petitioner from protracting the pending litigation to subserve his interest.”

(emphasis supplied)

2.2.2.In earlier Civil Revision Petitions filed by the contemnor, in C.R.P.(PD) Nos.716 & 717 of 2021, this Court, by common order dated 20.04.2021, has recorded as follows :

“3.It is very unfortunate that by taking advanta