Madras High Court
D.Vijayalakshmi vs Mr.P.Chelladurai on 23 December, 2021
Cont.P.No.1196 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
Contempt Petition No.1196 of 2021
in
C.R.P.No.187 of 2019
D.Vijayalakshmi
... Petitioner
Vs.
Mr.P.Chelladurai,
Presently Principal Sub Judge, Coimbatore
Previously 2nd Additional Sub Judge,
Coimbatore District Court Complex,
Coimbatore – 641 018.
... Respondent
PRAYER: This Contempt Petition is filed under Sections 11 and 16 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 r/w Section 6 of Contempt of Courts
Rules, High Court, Madras, 1975 to prosecute and punish the respondent
for misuse of power and post, wilfully, knowingly and deliberately
disobeying the orders of the Single Bench of this Court dated 25.01.2019
made in CRP(PD)No.187 of 2019 even after having the knowledge of
Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/11
Cont.P.No.1196 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mrs.D.Vijayalakshmi
Party-in-person
****
ORDER
The present contempt petition has been filed alleging that the
learned II Additional Sub Judge, Coimbatore had failed to dispose of the
suit within a period of three months as ordered by this Court on
25.01.2019 in C.R.P(PD)No.187 of 2019.
2.In order to verify the allegations made by the petitioner in her
affidavit filed in support of this contempt petition, this Court had called
for a report from the learned II Additional Sub Judge, Coimbatore.
Accordingly, a report dated 09.12.2021 has been placed before this
Court. The relevant portions of the said report reads as follows:-
“2. I humbly submit that the petitioner (Plaintiff) filed
O.S.No.269 of 2010 before this Court in the year of 2010
and she was examined as P.W.1 on 03.03.2018. In the
meanwhile, 1st and 2nd Defendants filed an application to set
aside the exparte order in I.A.No.316 of 2018, which was
allowed on 26.09.2018.
3. I further more submit that the petitioner filed
C.R.P.(PD) No.187 / 2019 for speedy disposal of the above
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.1196 of 2021
suit, which was allowed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras
on 25.01.2019 with a direction to dispose the case within
three months from the date of receipt of the order. The above
order was received by this Court on 25.03.2019 and the case
was posted for cross of P.W.1 on 27.03.2019, 29.03.2019
and 02.04.2019. On 02.04.2019, P.W.1 was cross examined
by 2nd defendant partly and it was posted for P.W.1 cross
continuation on 05.04.2019. On 05.04.2019, the plaintiff
counsel report that he had no instruction. Hence, the case was
posted on 08.04.2019 and again, the case was posted on
11.04.2019. The petitioner engaged a new counsel
Mr.C.P.Raghavan on 15.04.2019. On the request of both
sides, the case was posted on 15.04.2019. On 29.04.2019,
P.W.1 cross examination was completed and it was posted for
further plaintiff side evidence on 03.06.2019, since month of
May was summer vacation.
4. I submit that when this Court was taking effective
steps to complete the trial in view of the direction of the
Hon'ble High Court, the petitioner (Plaintiff), who sought for
the said direction from the Hon'ble High Court, filed an
application for appointment of commission on 03.06.2019 in
I.A.No.1 of 2019, which was dismissed on 05.09.2019 on
merits. Hence, this Court send a letter on 06.09.2019 in
D.No.2859 of 2019 for extension of time.
5. When the I.A.N.1 of 2019 is pending, the plaintiff
filed another two I.A.'s in I.A.No.2 of 2019 for production of
documents and another one I.A.No.3 of 2019 for
examination of Court Commissioner, who was appointed in
E.P.No.16 of 2004 in RCOP.No.96/1983.
6. I further more submit that though the plaintiff got
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.1196 of 2021
the aforesaid direction from the Hon'ble High Court of
Madras, filed three I.A.'s one after another with a view to
drag on the disposal of the suit.
7. I further more submit that the above said I.A.No.2
of 2019 was allowed on 03.03.2020 for production of
documents by the respondent and the I.A.No.3 of 2019 was
dismissed on 03.03.2020 on merits. As against the order of
dismissal in above I.A.No.1 of 2019, which was dismissed on
05.09.2019, she filed an application for certified copies in
C.A.No.12188 of 2019 for preferring a review, which was
also granted on 23.10.2019. If really the petitioner wanted to
dispose off the case as early as possible, she would not have
filed the said interlocutory applications. Due to the said
unnecessary applications, this Court was unable to dispose the
case within the time framed by the Hon'ble High Court.
8. When the I.A.No.2 of 2019 and I.A.No.3 of 2019
were pending for enquiry, the 1st and 2nd respondents in
I.A.No.2 of 2019 and I.A.No.3 of 2019 filed set aside
petition in I.A.No.4 of 2019 and I.A.No.5 of 2019, which
were allowed on cost. The said cost was also received by this
petitioner without any objection.
9. I further more beg to submit that the II Additional
Sub Court is a very heavy Court and it has also to exclusively
try Execution Petitions of all the five Subordinate Court.
Nearly 3100 Execution Petitions, 1400 Original Suits, 77
Appeals, 14 C.M.A., 403 H.M.O.P and 68 Sessions Cases
are pending and totally above 5000 cases are pending. Apart
from that nearly 4000 I.A.'s and E.A.'s are pending. In view
of the huge pendency, daily nearly 150 cases have been
posted for hearing. More over, the then II Additional
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.1196 of 2021
Subordinate Judge was holding Full Additional Charge of
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Principal Subordinate Court,
Secretary Legal Services Authority and Deputy Director of
Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy, Coimbatore.
10. I further submit that, whenever this case was
posted for hearing, this Court had been insisting both
counsels by remembering the direction of the Hon'ble High
Court to proceed with the case, but the counsels for plaintiff
and defendants filed several I.A.'s one after another thereby
adopting all delay tactics. Hence, this Court had to submit an
extension letter and the Hon'ble High Court of Madras was
also pleased to grant further six months time for disposal of
the case, which was received on 11.12.2019. Even after
knowing about the extension order copy, the plaintiff did not
co-operate with this Court to dispose the case.
11. I further submit that when the case was posted for
cross examination of P.W.1, 3rd and 4th Defendants did not
cross examine P.W.1 and as such, this Court set them exparte
on 15.02.2021 considering the Hon'ble High Court direction.
Subsequently, 3rd and 4th Defendants filed an application to
set aside the exparte order and to reopen the case for cross
examination of P.W.1, which was allowed on 05.03.2021 on
payment of cost in I.A.No.7 of 2021. The petitioner also
received the said costs without any objection and did not
prefer any revision.
12.I further more submit that the petitioner had
frequently change his counsels, namely, Mr.C.Rajasekar,
Mr.K.S.Venkatesamurthy, Mr.C.P.Ragavan and
Mr.M.Thirumurthy. Whenever she changed her counsel, the
new counsel took time to go through the records. During the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.1196 of 2021
said period, she appeared as party in person and took time to
engage her new counsel.
13. I further more submit that after disposal of the
above I.A., the case was posted for cross examination of
P.W.1, but due to Covid-19 and National Lock Down from
23.03.2020 to 30.09.2020 the case was adjourned without
any progress. Since Coimbatore was one of the most affected
area, nobody appeared before this Court and again due to
second wave of Covid-19, nobody appeared before before
this Court from March, 2021 to July, 2021. In the meanwhile,
on 22.04.2021, the then II Additional Sub Judge was
transferred as Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.
14. I further more submit that on 07.04.2021, the
written argument was filed by the plaintiff and the case was
posted for defendant side argument as no further
adjournment on 26.04.2021. In the meanwhile, the previous
Judicial Officer was transferred to Principal Subordinate
Court, Coimbatore and I have been transferred to this Court
on 22.04.2021 and Court was closed due to summer vacation
from 01.05.2021 to 31.05.2021. Due to Covid-19 the case
was posted in the special list through video conference on
30.06.2021, but no one was appearing.
15. I further submit at this stage, I have been put on
notice of the directions of the Hon'ble High Court and due to
Covid-19, the case was posted for argument on 05.07.2021
and 20.07.2021, but no representation from both parties or
counsels till 2.30 p.m., Hence, again it was posted for
argument on 23.07.2021 as last chance and no further
adjournment.
16. On 27.07.2021, 3rd and 4th Defendants side
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.1196 of 2021
arguments was heard in part and posted for further argument
on 30.07.2021 and the case was again posted for 3 rd and 4th
Defendants side further argument on 02.08.2021. On
02.08.2021, on perusal of the case bundle, it is found that
Ex.A3 was misplaced. Hence, memo was issued to the
concerned Bench Clerk.
17.On 27.08.2021, an application was for
reconstrution of Ex.A3 in I.A.No.8 of 2021, which was
allowed on 06.10.2021 and it was posted for 1st and 2nd
defendants side arguments and finally this case was posted for
1st and 2nd defendants side arguments on 25.10.2021 as no
further adjournment. Since, the Judge was O.D. on
25.10.2021, it was posted for argument on 27.10.2021 and
after hearing the arguments, it was posted for Judgement on
08.11.2021. Since the Judge was on Casual Leave on
08.11.2021, it was posted for Judgement on 15.11.2021 and
the suit was disposed of.
18. I beg to submit that only because of the following
reasons, this Court was unable to dispose of the suit within
the stipulated time fixed by the Hon'ble High Court:-
● Non co-operation of both side counsels, particularly
the petitioner/ plaintiff;
● Filing of unnecessary application by both parties;
● Change of counsels by the petitioner/ plaintiff;
● First and Second waves of Covid-19 during the said
period;
● Coimbatore was badly affected by Covid-19;
● Physical hearing was restricted in the Courts at
Coimbatore;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.1196 of 2021
● Huge pendency in this Court, which is also an
executing Court; and
● Judge was holding full additional charge of various
Courts.
The said delay was neither wilful nor wanton, but for the
aforesaid reasons. I further submit that I specifically deny all
the allegations levelled as against this Court in the affidavit
and interpretation of provisions in the Judges Protection Act
by the Contempt petitioner, which are not correct, but only
false.”
3.An overall perusal of the report reveals that the case could not be
completed within the original period of three months since the petitioner,
who was the plaintiff in the suit, had filed three applications and the
pendency of these applications had consumed some time. Thereafter, the
defendants were also set ex-parte during the course of the proceedings,
which was later set aside, and the case was also reopened for cross
examination. Apart from this, the plaintiff had changed her counsels on
three occasions and the new counsels, who had appeared, had sought for
adjournments for perusing the records. Further, during the course of
hearings before the Trial Court, the plaintiff had appeared as a party-in-
person and sought time to engage new counsel. Moreover, since the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.1196 of 2021
Covid-19 pandemic existed at that time and the national lock down was
also declared, the lawyers had not appeared before the Court for some
time. At the stage of argument and passing of judgment, the learned
Presiding Officer was on leave on two occasions. It is in this background,
the suit came to be disposed of finally on 15.11.2021.
4.Owing to all these reasons, it appears that the suit could not be
disposed in time and none of these reasons can be attributed to the
learned Presiding Officer for the delay. On the other hand, it can be said
that, the considerable length period of time for such pendency was also
attributable to the plaintiff, when she had chosen to file three applications
and had frequently changed her counsels. Consequently, Covid-19
pandemic has also attributed to the delay in disposal of the said suit. As
such, I do not find any bona fide reasons in the averments made by the
petitioner against the Presiding Officer in the affidavit filed in support of
the contempt petition.
5.Since this Court is of the view that there was no disobedience,
much less a wilful disobedience, the contempt petition does not deserve
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.1196 of 2021
any consideration. Accordingly, this contempt petition stands dismissed.
No costs.
23.12.2021
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
skn
To
1.The II Additional Subordinate Judge,
Coimbatore.
2.Mr.P.Chelladurai,
Presently Principal Sub Judge, Coimbatore
Previously 2nd Additional Sub Judge,
Coimbatore District Court Complex,
Coimbatore – 641 018.
M.S.RAMESH, J
skn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.1196 of 2021
Contempt Petition No.1196 of 2021
in
C.R.P.No.187 of 2019
23.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
