IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 12.4.2024 Coram :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH Contempt Petition Nos.2255 & 3021 of 2023 & Sub.A.No.701 of 2023 Perumal Mudaliar ...Petitioner in Cont.P.No.2255 of 2023 & R1 in Cont.P.No.3021 of 2023 Vs

1.Mrs.Lakshmi, Inspector of Police, Mailam Police Station, Mailam, Villupuram District.

604304. ...R1 in Cont.P.

No.2255 of 2023 & R2 in Cont.P. No.3021 of 2023

2.R.Vijayasamundeeswari ...R2 in Cont.P.

No.2255 of 2023 & Petitioner in Cont.P.No.3021of 2023 PETITIONS under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 praying to punish the respondents for wilfully disobeying the orders of this Court dated 25.8.2023 in W.P.No.25164 of 2023.

For Petitioner in Cont.P.

2255 of 2023 & R1 in Cont.P.No.3021 of 2023 : Mr.K.Doraisamy for M/s.Muthumani Doraisamy For R1 in Cont.P.No. 2255 of 2023 & R2 in Cont.P.No.3021 of 2023 : Mr.C.E.Pratap, GA (Crl.Side)

For R2 in Cont.P.No.

2255 of 2023 & Petitioner in Cont.P.No.3021 of 2023 : Mr.M.Govindaraju COMMON ORDER Common issues are involved in both these contempt petitions and hence, common order was passed.

2. Contempt Petition No.2255 of 2023 has been filed by the writ petitioner on the ground that the order passed by this Court in the writ petition on 25.08.2023 was not complied with.

3. Contempt Petition No.3021 of 2023 has been filed by the 4^th respondent in the writ petition on the ground that the writ petitioner has taken undue advantage of the order passed in the writ petition and has gone over board by demolishing the structure in the property and had taken illegal possession of the property.

4. Heard the respective learned counsel appearing for the parties.

5. On carefully going through the records, it is seen that a judgement and decree came to be passed in SA No.812 of 2013 based on the compromise that was arrived at between the plaintiff and the defendant in the suit. Even when the Second appeal was pending, the petitioner in Cont p No.3021 of 2023 had filed an impleading petition on the ground that her interest is affected with respect to the subject property. This impleading petition was also considered in CMP No.3417 of 2020 and the following findings was rendered by this Court.

10. Once the original parties, viz., plaintiff and the defendant have agreed to compromise their rights to the suit schedule property, the claim of 3rd party to be heard in this matter need not be entertained at all by this Court. This is more so, when the third party interest has accrued to her only pending litigation before the lower appellate Court as well as before this Court. Therefore, any supposed transaction is a pendente lite development and this Court is not bound to hear the third party. When the original parties have agreed to settle the lis between themselves, interest pendente lite, a party who acquired cannot prevent the parties from reaching settlement between them and in that view of the matter, this Court finds that the impleading petition need not be entertained. Moreover, when the appeal was pending before the lower appellate Court and also before this Court for a period, nearly seven years, no petition for impleadment was filed although the third party was in the know of things. Only when the parties proposed to compromise between themselves, the present impleading petition is moved by the third party in order to stall the compromise for serving her own ends. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the impleading petition in C.M.P.No.3417 of 2020 seeking for impleadment of the proposed third party deserve dismissed and the same is dismissed.

6. Pursuant to the above order passed, the 4^th respondent in the writ petition also filed Rev.A No.59 of 2020 and 101 of 2021 to review the order passed both in the second appeal as well as in the impleading petition. These review petitions were dismissed by an order dated

05.07.2023.

7. The writ petitioner approached this Court seeking for police protection in line with the decree passed by the