ORDER

The above contempt petition has been filed alleging that the respondent/ contemnor had violated the interim order of injunction granted by this Court on 22.07.2022 in C.M.P.No.11683 of 2022 in S.A.No.588 of 2022. This Court had ordered statutory notice to the contemnor who is appearing before this Court.

2. Considering the fact that the entire issue revolved around the factum of encroachment of 30 feet road, this Court had appointed an Advocate Commissioner to demarcate the B - Schedule property and file a report thereon. The Advocate Commissioner, M/s.S.Sahana Banu has also filed her report along with the survey sketch, photographs, etc., on 01.08.2023. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also filed the entire pleadings and exhibits in O.S.No.104 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif at Chengalpattu which is the genesis for this proceedings.

3.Before discussing the issue, it is necessary to touch upon the facts which has culminated in filing of this petition.

4. The petitioner herein had filed O.S.No.104 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif at Chengalpattu seeking for a declaration that the petitioner herein is entitled to enjoy the frontage right at every point on the western side of the A-schedule property over 30 feet wide road and a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove the pillars and other encroachments made in B-schedule road.

5. The B-schedule property has been described as follows:

“SCHEDULE-B:

All that piece and parcel of 30 feet wide Muthusamy Salai shown in the layout on the western side of Plot No: 1 & 2 remains as traingular piece of land with 30 feet width at the north-western end of Plot No 2 and ends at the south-western end of Plot No:1 being the frontage both Plot No:1 & 2 referred in Schedule-A in Survey No:19/1B, Vallanchery Village, Chengalpattu Taluk, Kancheepuram District”.

6. I do not intend to delve on the facts of the case, suffice it to state that the suit despite contest was decreed in favour of the petitioner by Judgment and decree dated 30.11.2018. This Judgment and decree dated 30.11.2018 was taken up on appeal by the contemnor who is the defendant therein before the Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu at Kancheepuram District in A.S.No.6 of 2019. The appeal was allowed in favour of the respondent herein by Judgment and decree dated 25.03.2022 which is the subject matter of challenge in S.A.No.588 of 2022 which is pending on the file of this Court.

7. From the documents submitted by the petitioner it appears that pending the suit an Advocate Commissioner has been appointed originally in I.A.No.1598 of 2008. She has also submitted her report which is marked as Ex.C1 in the suit. The Commissioner has fixed and localised the Bi-Junction stone separating the suit village (Vellancherry village) and the Thailavaram village. She has opined that there is no survey stones in the suit properties. With the help of the Divisional Inspector of Survey, the Advocate Commissioner has marked G.S.T. Road, Lay out road, Bi- Junction stone and the remaining land in the Thailavaram village. Survey sketches were also marked as Ex.C4 and Ex.C5. There is an interim report originally made by the very same Advocate Commissioner in the I.A.No.539 of 2008 to which she has also attached a rough sketch. The Advocate Commissioner would submit that during her visit the construction was ongoing and the same was at plinth beam level, with six newly constructed wet beams. The Advocate Commissioner also noted that arrangements were made for erecting the concrete column pillars which is nine in number. It is after this interim report, the report in I.A.No.1598 of 2008 with reference to the Bi-Junction stone has been filed. This Advocate Commissioner was once again asked to inspect and file a report in I.A.No.743 of 2017. During this visit, the Advocate Commissioner confirmed the existence of the pillars and also the fact that there is a new cement cover drainage channel put up in the B-sc