A party-in-person must provide sufficient evidence in a contempt case to substantiate claims of forgery and disprove participation in auction proceedings, or contempt cannot be established.

ORDER :

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

1. This contempt petition is filed as if it is arising out of C.R.P.(NPD) No.1379 of 2020. The original order, that is kept along with the contempt petition, is an interim order dated 20.10.2020 passed by Hon’ble Mr.Justice RMT.Teekaa Raman and by the said order, this Court directed the respondents to furnish the entire details, as the counter filed by them before the trial Court was bereft of details. The Registry was directed to call for the records relating to CMA(C.S).No.3 of 2002 passed by the Learned Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri, Krishnagiri on 26.03.2004.

2. The contempt petition is filed with a prayer which reads as follows:-

“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, please explain why the petitioner should nor approach the Hon’ble Court for offences punishable under Sections 454, 324, 120, 378, 379, 468, 454, 345, 420, 506 and 447 IPC r/w Offences under the Provisions of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss)Act, 1992, and punish the respondents accordingly and also for Rs.7,00,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Crore only) as compensation for loss of property and Rs.10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Crores only) as damages for mental agony, physical and mental harassment and loss of income and to recover the same from the respondents and take contempt of Court action and thereby render justice.”

3. However, since the petitioner is appearing as party in person and she has raised certain basic questions, the contempt petition seems to have been directed to be numbered by my predecessors and has been taken on file as Contempt Petition No.1342 of 2021 and is being adjourned from time to time.

4. It is seen that the civil revision petition came up for hearing and this Court speaking through the Hon’ble Mr.Justice C.V.Karthikeyan, had passed a detailed order and the operative portion, that is contained in paragraph Nos.21 and 22, is extracted hereunder for ready reference:-

“21.I must also state that the petitioner herein had raised an issue claiming that she was not at all a member of the Society and that she had not even participated in the auction. These are facts to be examined and determined. It is also seen that the award is an exparte award. Therefore, I would also give a further direction that if the petitioner or the respondents in C.M.A.(CS)No.8 of 2014 request that an opportunity may be granted to tender oral evidence, then depending on the nature of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of such applications, the learned Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri, may also take a considered decision on such applications and if permission is granted to adduce evidence, may record evidence or call upon the Court of the first instance to record evidence.

22.With the above observations, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.”

5. As far as this case is concerned, it has got a chequered history. This Court, speaking through the Hon’ble Mr.Justice.V.Ramasubramanian (as his Lordship then was) in W.P.No.15671 of 2012 had encapsulated the entire history of the case in paragraph 3 and the same is extracted hereunder:

“The case of the petitioner has had a chequered history. It is necessary to extract the same, in view of the fact that the petitioner appears as a party-in-person and it may be difficult for anyone to decipher her grievance without having a complete picture. Hence, the history is narrated as follows:-

(i) On the ground that the petitioner failed to pay money to the Societies towards the cotton purchased by her, the Society initiated arbitration proceedings