IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Doctrine of Pious obligation as applied to Hindu Law cannot be applied in respect of an action for contempt.
(2) The action for contempt is personal in nature and the contempt abates along with the death of contemnor.

K.K. Sasidharan, J.—Challenge in this Civil Revision Petition is to the order dated 16.4.2009 in IA No. 1115 of 2003 in O.S. No. 95 of 2002 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram.

The Facts:

2. The petitioners are the legal representatives of one P. Mohamed Ismail, defendant in O.S. No. 95 of 2002 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram. The Suit in O.S. No. 95 of 2002 was preferred by the respondent against P. Mohamed Ismail praying for a money decree for a sum of Rs. 1,04,038 on the basis of a promissory note stated to have been executed by him. The respondent also filed an application for attachment before judgment and the said application was registered as IA No. 8 of 2001. In the said application, the respondent/Mohamed Ismail had filed counter wherein besides denying the allegations made in the application, an undertaking was given that he has no intention to alienate the property and as .such there would alienation till the disposal of the suit.

3. The learned Trial Judge as per order dated 22.2.2002 allowed the Application filed under Order 38, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure and attached the property in spite of the undertaking given by the respondent in the said application. The said order has become final.

4. Subsequently, it appears that the respondent in IA No.8 of 2001 assigned the property by way of two sale deeds in favour of S. Mani Chettiar and M. Sathish Kumar. Since the assignments were made during the currency of the order of attachment, the respondent herein filed contempt petition No. 1115 of 2003 to punish the respondent in IA No.8 of 2001 for his wilful disobedience of the order passed by the Trial Court. During the pendency of the said Application, the respondent P. Mohammed Ismail died and the petitioners, being his legal representatives were impleaded as respondents in the contempt petition.

5. The wife of the deceased Mohamed Ismail was impleaded as the second respondent and his children were impleaded as respondents 3 and 4. In short the matter was continued even after the death of the contemnor and ultimately as per order dated 16.4.2009 the revision petitioners were convicted. The first petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000 as fine and the petitioners 2 and 3 were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of two months. It is the said order, which is impugned in the Civil Revision Petition.

The Issue:

6. The only issue which arises for consideration in the Civil Revision is as to whether the revision petitioners could be convicted on account of the contemptuous act committed by their predecessor-in-interest.

Discussion:

7. The respondent herein has preferred an Application for attachment before judgment in IA No. 8 of 2001 during the pendency of the Suit in O.S. No. 95 of 2002 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram. In the Application for attachment before judgment, the respondent was none other than the defendant in O.S. No. 95 of 2002. The respondent has given an undertaking in his counter in IA No. 8 of 1991 that he would not alienate the property till the disposal of the Suit. However, the Court was not inclined to accept the said undertaking and accordingly an order of attachment was made as per order dated 22.2.2002. The said order has become final.

8. Subsequently the respondent in IA No. 8 of 2001 sold the property to third parties by way of two separate sale deeds in violation of the order passed by the Civil Court. It was only in the said circumstances, the respondent has filed an Application in IA No.1115 of 2003 to punish the wrongdoer on account of his contemptuous act in selling the property disregarding the order of attachment made by the Trial Court. The respondent in the said Contempt Petition died during the pendency of the said application. His legal representatives were impleaded as respondents 2 to 4 in IA No.1115 of 2003.

9. Even though the person, who was instrumental in committing contempt died