Madras High Court
Sarada vs Tamil Nadu Government on 5 January, 2021
C.M.A.No.1051 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
C.M.A.No.1051 of 2011
1.Sarada
2.Sankar
3.Kesavan ..Appellants
Vs.
1.Tamil Nadu Government
Rep.by the District Collector,
Nagapattinam.
2.The Special Tahsildar (L.A)
Road Sector Project,
Nagapattinam.
3.Tahsildar,
Nagapattinam. ..Respondents
Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1 of
C.P.C., against the Fair and Decreetal order dated 30.09.2010 made in
I.A.No.66 of 2020 in CMA.No.9 of 2010 on the file of the Subordiante
Judge, Nagapattinam.
For Appellants : Mr.T.S.Baskaran
For Respondents : Mr.S.Jaganathan
Government Advocate(CS)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
JUDGMENT
C.M.A.No.1051 of 2011
The Fair and Decreetal order dated 30.09.2010 made in I.A.No.66
of 2020 in CMA.No.9 of 2010 sought to be set aside in the present Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal.
2. The Interlocutory Application is filed to commit the
respondents to Civil prison for the contempt caused by them and to
make them obey the order passed in I.A.No.2 of 2010, renumbered as
I.A.No.64 of 2010 before the Sub Court, Nagapattinam.
3. The interim order granted was the cause for filing the
Interlocutory Application to commit the respondents to Civil Prison for
contempt. The Sub Court, Nagapattinam, elaborately considered the
issues raised by the respective parties and appointed an Advocate
Commissioner to find out whether the order passed by the Court was or
not. The Commissioner appointed by the Court visited the suit property
and submitted his report and plans Exs.C1 and C2 and has stated that
during his inspection on 11.06.2010, which was a second inspection
some trees were also newly cut and pits were newly dug after his first
inspection and so itself shows that no waste was committed by the
respondents. Further, only cutting of trees or digging pits and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1051 of 2011
demolishing an existing building amounts to act of waste and new
construction would only amount to a development and it could not be
termed as act of waste and therefore, the Court determines that even if
the respondents have proceeded with construction after passing an order
in I.A.No.2 of 2010, it would not amount to act of waste over the suit
property sought to be prevented by the petitioners since as stated above
construction is only a development activity and accordingly, the Court
arrived a conclusion that the respondents have not violated the orders
passed by the Sub Court in I.A.No.2 of 2010.
4. In view of the fact that based on the report of the Commissioner
appointed by the Court, the Trial Court arrived a conclusion that the
respondents have not committed an act of contempt of the order passed
by the Trial Court. This being the factum, this Court do not find any
acceptable ground for the purpose of interfering with the order passed
by the Sub Court, Nagapattinam as the reasons stated are candid and
convincing. Thus, the parties have to adjudicate the issues on merits in
the suit filed.
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1051 of 2011
kak
5. Accordingly, the Fair and Decreetal order dated 30.09.2010
passed in I.A.No.66 of 2010 in C.M.A.No.9 of 2010 stands confirmed
and C.M.A.No.1051 of 2011 stands dismissed. No costs.
05.01.2021
(1/3)
kak
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-Speaking Order
To
The Subordinate Court,
Nagapattinam.
C.M.A.No.1051 of 2011
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
