Madras High Court
K.Hariyappan vs Gaga Deep Singh Bedi on 27 April, 2023
1 Cont P No.2384 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.04.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Cont.P.No.2384 of 2022
K.Hariyappan .....Petitioner/Petitioner
Vs.
1. Gaga Deep Singh Bedi,
The Commissioner,
Greater Chennai City Municipal Corporation,
Rippon Buildings,
Chennai 600 003.
2. Haripriya
The Junior Engineer,
Greater Chennai city Municipal Corporation,
Division No.140, Alandur Road,
Arulyampet, Chennai 600 097 .... Respondents/Respondents
Contempt Petition filed under section 11 of the Contempt
of Courts Act, to punish the respondents for disobeying the order
of this Court dated 30.01.2019 passed in WP No.32627 of 2010.
For Petitioner : M/s.Venkataswamy
For Respondents : Mr.R.Ramanlal
Additional Advocate General
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2 Cont P No.2384 of 2022
Assisted by
M/s.P.T.Ramadevi,
Standing Counsel
ORDER
When the contempt came up for hearing on
13.04.2023, this Court passed the following order :-
This contempt petition has been filed on the ground that the
order passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.No.32627 of 2019,
dated 31.03.2021 has been violated.
2. The petitioner approached this Court and filed the
writ petition on the ground that he is an agent under the
legal heirs of one Munusamy and the said Munusamy filed a
suit in O.S.No.447 of 2002 before the IV Assistant City Civil
Court to declare that he is the sole and absolute owner of the
shop that was situated in Survey No.62/1 and for
consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the
Corporation from interfering with the peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the property. An ex parte decree was passed in
favour of the said Munusamy by judgment and decree dated
09.12.2003. After the demise of the said Munusamy, his legal
heirs entered into a lease agreement with the petitioner on
05.11.2020 and the petitioner was running a tea shop.
3. The petitioner was not allowed to run the tea shop
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis and hence, he filed the writ petition before this Court. The
writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 31.03.2021 in
the following terms:
"4. Admittedly, the suit was decreed in favour of one
Munusamy in the year 2003 by the IV Assistant City Civil Court
in O.S.No.447/2002 and this petitioner has also entered into
lease agreement with the legal heirs of the late Munusamy on
05.11.2020. The decree passed by the competent Civil Court is
not denied by the respondents. However, the respondents
have stated that as against the exparte decree, the
Corporation has taking steps to file a petition to set aisde the
ex parte decree. Though the learned counsel for the
respondents seeks time to get further instructions, this Court
is not inclined to grant time, as the respondents have filed
counter affidavit wherein they have admitted that a decree
was passed in favour of Munusamy.
5. In view of the above, this Writ Petition stands
allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed."
4. The grievance that has been expressed by the
petitioner in this contempt petition is that the Corporation
had put up a grill gate and kept the shop under lock and key
in a highhanded manner. In spite of the representation made
by the petitioner on 11.03.2022, the Corporation did not
choose to remove the grill gate and lock. This has resulted in
effectively preventing the petitioner from running the tea
shop. It is, on this ground, the present contempt petition was
filed before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
Corporation. There is absolutely no denial about the grill gate
that has been put up and the same being kept under lock and
key. The respondents are once again reiterating the same
stand that was taken in the writ petition and justifying their
act. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the
petition filed for setting aside the said ex parte decree is
pending. In view of the same, it is clear that the decree that
was passed in favour of Munusamy continues to be in force till
date. It is now too well settled that an ex parte decree is as
good as a decree passed after contest. Therefore, the
respondents should not be under the impression that the ex
parte decree will not bind them.
6. Towards the fag end of the order, learned Standing
Counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation submitted
that the grill gate will be removed and the same will be
reported before this Court during the next date of hearing.
In the light of the above, post this contempt petition
under the caption 'for reporting compliance' on 27.04.2023. If
the grill gate is removed, this Court will proceed to close the
contempt petition. If the respondents continue to take the
very same stand, this Court will pass consequential orders in
the contempt petition.
2. When the matter was taken up for hearing today, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of
Chennai Corporation submitted the compliance report filed on
behalf of the Corporation of Chennai. The relevant portions in
the compliance report are extracted hereunder :-
5. I humbly submit that based on the orders passed by this
Hon'ble Court, the grill gate was removed as on 24.04.2023 at
10 a.m. With the presence of the officials of this respondent.
The photos are enclosed along with this report.
6. I respectfully submit that I have got highest regard and
respect to this Hon'ble Court and the orders passed by this
Hon'ble Court. I have great regards and respect always to
implement the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court. In any
event if this Hon'ble Court views that I have violated the
orders in any manner I humbly pray for an unconditional
apology without any reservation whatsoever from this Hon'ble
Court.
3. The learned Additional Advocate General also pointed
out to the photographs that have been filed along with the
compliance report. It is seen from the report that the grill gate
was removed on 24.04.2023.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. In view of the above development, the compliance is
recorded. This contempt petition stands closed. It is made clear
that insofar as the right that is claimed by the Corporation, it is
left open to them to proceed in accordance with law.
27.04.2023
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
rka
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N.ANAND VENKATESH.,J
rka
Cont.P.No.2384 of 2022
27.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
