Contempt proceedings and associated penalties must be carefully evaluated in light of the merits of the case to ensure justice.

JUDGMENT

The Writ Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

1. To set aside Ext.P2 common order dated 11.3.2009 made in I.A.No.850/08 and in I.A.No.947/08 in C.M.A.No.55/07 on the file of the Court of the District Judge, Palakkad.

2. To issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction which as the petitioner prays later and this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and necessary to issue in the interest of justice.

2.Petitioners are the 2nd and 3rd defendants in O.S.No.13/07 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Alathur. The first respondent filed the above suit in which he moved an application for interim injunction restraining the defendants from cutting down the trees and commiting any waste in the plaint property. The defendants 2 and 3 filed joint statement disputing the claim of the first respondent- plaintiff and contending they are in possession of the property. The first respondent filed a separate statement stating that he is not claiming any right over the property. The learned Munsiff, after hearing both sides, dismissed the application for interim injunction, against which the first respondent-plaintiff preferred an appeal as W.P.C.No.12168/09 - 2 -

C.M.A.No.55/07. Along with the appeal, the first respondent-appellant moved an application for interim injunction. The appellate court directed the parties to maintain status quo. Alleging that the status quo order has been violated by the defendants in the suit by cutting down four teak trees in the property, the first respondent-appellant moved an application for prosecuting them under Order 39 Rule 2A C.P.C. The Advocate Commissioner appointed by the court conducted a local inspection and filed a report. While an enquiry over that petition was pending the first respondent-appellant again moved another application contending that there was a subsequent violation of the order by the respondents by cutting down almost all the trees in the property. The Advocate Commissioner who was appointed earlier was again directed to conduct local inspection and after such inspection a report was filed informing of further cutting down and removal of trees from the property. The learned District Judge proceeded with the enquiry on both the applications moved by the first respondent-appellant in which he was examined as a witness. No counter evidence was adduced by any of the respondents/defendants. The learned District Judge on the basis of the materials produced and hearing the counsel on both sides, found that the second and third defendants had willfully and deliberately W.P.C.No.12168/09 - 3 -

violated the order of status quo passed by the court by cutting down and removing valuable trees from the property. Proceeding against the second respondent herein, the first defendant in the suit, was found not entertainable as no notice of the proceedings was given to him. For the wilful violation and disobedience of the orders of the court, the learned District Judge passed the impugned order directing the detention of the defendants 2 and 3 in civil prison for a period of six months. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India .

3. I heard the learned counsel on both sides. Ext.P2 is the common order passed by the learned District Judge in the two applications moved by the first respondent-plaintiff alleging violation of the order of status quo passed by that court by the respondents in the appeal/petitioners in the Writ Petition. Ext.P1 is the copy of the order passed by the learned Munsiff dismissing the application for interim injunction moved by the plaintiff. No doubt, any violation of the order passed by the court has to be viewed seriously and dealt with promptly which otherwise would make the orders of the court meaningless and discarded to be mocked at. Learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the appeal preferred by the first W.P.C.No.1