IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13-11-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN CONT A Nos. 25 & 26 of 2025 S. Veni Chairman Cum Special Deputy Collector, Revenue Court, Mayiladuthurai 609 001. Appellant in both appeals Vs

1. T. Shankar 1st respondent in both the appeals

2.N. Sankar 2nd respondent in Cont.A.No.25 of 2025 3. G. Arunkumar 2nd respondent in Cont.A.No.26of 2025 Respondent(s)

PRAYER Both the Contempt Appeals filed under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to set aside the order dated 28.04.2025 passed in Contempt Petition Nos.609 and 610 of 2025 and allow these Contempt Appeals.

For Appellant Mr. J. Ravindran, AAG, in both Cont.A Assisted by Mrs. R.Anitha, SGP For Respondent Mr. B.Jawahar, for R1 in both Cont.A:

COMMON O RDER

(Order of the Court was made by N.Sathish Kumar J.)

Challenging the order of the learned Single Judge punishing the appellant for alleged contempt and directing her to undergo imprisonment for two days in a civil prison with a fine of Rs.2000/-, and in addition directing the concerned authorities to initiate disciplinary proceedings against her, the present Contempt Appeals have been filed.

2. The learned single judge has passed the impugned order taking note of the fact that though the revenue proceedings in P.Nos.144 & 145 of 2024 under the Tamilnadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, pending before the Court, ought to be transferred to some other Revenue Court in Tr.CMP Nos.873 and 874 of 2025 in CMP Nos.19239 and 19241 of 2024, and this Court vide order dated 03.09.2024 has stayed all further proceedings in P.Nos.144 & 145 of 2024 and the order was said to have been communicated to appellant/ Contemnor on 04.09.2024. Nevertheless, the respondent filed a contempt on the ground that despite being informed of the stay order, the contemnor, without complying with the same, has antedated the order as if the proceedings were concluded on

07.08.2024 itself.

3. According to the respondent, if really the proceedings before the Revenue Court had truly concluded by passing the eviction order on 07.08.2024, there was no necessity to post the case to the next hearing on 21.08.2024. According to the learned counsel, the cases were posted for the next hearing date on 21.08.2024. However, on that day, the matters have not been called and therefore, he has initiated contempt.

4. The learned Single Judge has called for the records and found that the petitioner’s cases were listed from 12.06.2024 and the same position continued till 26.06.2024. Thereafter, the matters had been adjourned to 07.08.2024. The learned Single Judge has also taken note of the fact that there was no proper entry to show that the order allegedly passed on 07.08.2024 was properly communicated. Hence, the learned Single Judge concluded that the order dated 07.08.2024 was antedated and, while holding that the contemnor committed contempt, set aside the order dated 07.08.2024 and transferred the revenue cases to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagapattinam for further hearing.

5. Heard the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent and we have also perused the records carefully.

6. On perusal of the records, we are of the view that the case has been projected as if the respondent’s cases had been posted after 07.08.2024 and scheduled on 21.08.2024. On perusal of the records, particularly, the cause lists dated 07.08.2024 and 21.08.2024, we find that though the respondent's cases had been posted on 07.08.2024. thereafter, the cases were not listed. Whereas, the cause list dated 21.08.2024 reflects the case numbers, namely, 144, and 145 of 2018, where as the respondent’s case numbers are 144 and 145 of 2024. The contention of the respondent that despite the alleged order dated 07.08.2024, the cases had been posted on 21.08.2024 is factually incorrect. Therefore, holding that the order antedated, in our view, may