N RATHINASABAPATHY Vs. K S PALANIAPPA KANDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order passed by the High court of madras in Contempt Application No. 140 of 1985 whereby the court came to the conclusion that the appellants herein had committed contempt of court under section 12 of the Contempt of courts Act, 1971 and sentenced each of the appellants to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks. The matter arose out of an ad interim injunction issued by the court in the following terms: "interim injunction for three weeks. Notice, three weeks. "

(2.) The order which was communicated to the appellants also stated that the injunction was limited to the period of three weeks. Indisputably, the period of three weeks for which the injunction was granted was not extended by the court. After the expiry of the period of three weeks, since there was no extension of the injunction, the appellants proceeded with the construction and completed the same. The High court, while holding the appellants guilty of contempt observed as under:

(3.) With respect to the High court we find it difficult to comprehend how the blame could be laid at the doors of the appellants. There is no doubt that the operation of the injunction was limited to three weeks. It is nobody's case that it was extended thereafter. The appellants showed respect to the order of the court by stopping the construction as soon as the injunction order was received. After the expiry of three weeks when they did not receive any order continuing the injunction, they proceeded with the construction. As such it is difficult to understand how it can be said that the appellants had shown disrespect to the order passed by the court. On the contrary, they showed respect by not proceeding with the construction as soon as the injunction order was received and they continued with the construction only after its period expired. Therefore, the High court was wrong in stating that the appellants committed gross violation of the spirit and intention of the order "as if it had been effective only for a period of three weeks from the date of pronouncement of the order". There is no question of the order being in existence after the expiry of three weeks. The expression 'as if used in the abstracted part of the order is totally unwarranted because indisputably, it was effective only for a period of three weeks. There was, therefore, absolutely no violation of the court's order. We, therefore, fail to understand how the appellants can be hauled up for contempt under Section 12 of the Contempt of courts Act. We are clearly of the opinion that there was no disrespect intended or shown and there was no contempt whatsoever. The impugned order of the High court cannot, therefore, be allowed to stand.