Madras High Court
M. Gagan Bothra vs Thiru Pushparaj on 4 September, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, V.Sivagnanam
Cont.A.(SR) No.71132 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.09.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
Cont.A.(SR) No.71132 of 2023
M. Gagan Bothra ... Appellant
Vs
Thiru Pushparaj,
The Inspector of Police,
C-2, Elephant Gate Police Station,
Chennai 600 001 ... Respondent
PRAYER: This Contempt Appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the
Contempt of Courts Act r/w. Clause 15 of the Letter Patent against the order
dated 28.03.2023 made in Cont.P.No.151 of 2023 on the file of the Hon'ble High
Court of Judicature at Madras.
For Petitioner : Mr. M. Gagan Bothra,
Party in person
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.A.(SR) No.71132 of 2023
For respondent : Mr. E. Raj Thilak,
Additional Public Prosecutor,
Amicus Curiae
ORDER
(Order of the Court is made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
The Contempt petition has been instituted to punish the respondent for
their wilful disobedience of the order dated 29.10.2021 passed by the learned
Master, High Court, in Application No.3680 of 2021 in E.P.No.117 of 2015.
2. A perusal of the order dated 29.10.2021 reveals that the learned
Master, considering the application filed by the decree holder, allowed the
application, and thereby directed the Registry to issue warrant to the concerned
Police Official to execute the arrest of Judgment Debtor. The grievance of the
appellant is that the respondent police have not executed the warrant by arresting
the Judgment Debtor and therefore, he was constrained to file Contempt Petition
No.151 of 2023. The learned Single Judge closed the Contempt on the ground
that there is no wilful or deliberate disobedience committed by the respondent as
complained by the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. Order 39 Rule 25 of Madras High Court Original Side Rules provides
duration of warrant or attachment and return of warrant of arrest or attachment.
Accordingly, every warrant of arrest or attachment shall be returnable by the
Nazar to the Court immediately after the execution or service thereof or whether
he has been unable to serve or execute the same not later than 3 months from the
date of delivery to him of the order for arrest or attachment unless such time
being extended by an order to be obtained exparte from the Master. The Nazar
shall certified by an endorsement on the warrant the date and manor in which it
has been executed or why it has not been executed.
4. Therefore, the Master, High Court is empowered to issue warrant to be
executed by Nazar and the same can be executed with the aid of the police. That
being the spirit of Order 39 Rule 28 of Madras High Court Original Side Rules,
learned Master is not empowered to issue any direction to the police to execute
the warrant. The police can be directed to provide aid to the Nazar for execution
of warrant. Therefore, the learned Master hereinafter has to ensure that the
execution of the warrant is to be issued to the Nazar and while doing so, the
Police aid can be provided to Nazar for execution of such arrest warrant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Therefore, it is only a protection, which is to be extended by the police while
executing the arrest by the Nazar and the very order passed by the Master
issuing a direction to the police to execute the warrant is running counter to
Order 39 Rule 25 of the Madras High Court Original Side Rules.
5. Admittedly, the dispute is of Civil Nature between two private
individuals. The petitioner is a decree holder. He is entitled to execute the decree
in the manner known to law. However, the order of the learned Master would
not provide a cause for institution of a Contempt proceedings. As far as the
Police Authorities are concerned, they have acted in compliance with the order
passed by the learned Master and the inability to execute the warrant would not
attract contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act.
6. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to work out his remedy for the purpose
of execution of the decree obtained by him. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in
respect of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. As it is rightly held that
the respondent has not committed any wilful or deliberate disobedience of the
orders passed by the Master on 29.10.2021 in Application No.3680 of 2021, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
State Machinery cannot be utilized for the purpose of execution of Civil Court
decrees and such an attempt cannot be encouraged by this Court by exercising
the Contempt jurisdiction under the Contempts of Courts Act.
7. Accordingly, the Contempt petition stands rejected in SR stage itself.
[S.M.S., J.] [V.S.G., J.]
04.09.2024
mrp
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
mrp
04.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
