K GANESAN Vs. P MARIMUTHU MUDALIAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On a reference by the Principal Subordinate Judge of Tiruchirapalli on 8th April, 1980 stating that the respondents herein bad willfully "caused an affront to the dignity and authority" of the Advocate-Commissioner appointed by him, suo motu action was taken by this Court, under S. 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and notice was ordered to the alleged condemners (who will hereinafter be referred to as the respondents) to call upon them to show cause why they should not fee punished for contempt of court said to have, been committed by them. On receipt of the notice, the respondents, have appeared in court and filed counter-affidavits denying the charge of contempt and inter alia tendering unconditional apology in the event of this Court not being satisfied with their plea of denial to the charge of contempt.

(2.) The proceedings for contempt have come to be initiated in the following circumstances: One K. Ganesan filed a suit O.S. No. 393 of 1979 on the file of the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli seeking therein a declaration of his rights in a partnership firm known as Sri Balakrishna Boiler and Rice Mill, Manachanallur. On the application of the said Ganesan, the Subordinate Judge issued an ex parte commission to take an inventory of the account books, etc., kept in the premises of the Rice Mill.

(3.) An advocate by name Thiru S. Jayakumar, who was appointed Commissioner, visited the Mill on 18th April, 1979 to execute the warrant of commission. The Advocate-Commissioner could not execute the warrant as some of the respondents and some others assembled at the premises of the Mill exhibited an attitude of defiance and thereby prevented the Commissioner from taking an inventory of the account books. Thereupon, the Commissioner locked and sealed the office premises where the account books and cash were kept arid submitted an interim report to the Court on the next day, i.e., 19th April, 1979. Even as the report was being filed by the Commissioner, the plaintiff in the suit came to know that the seal put on the premises by the Commissioner had been broken open and hence the plaintiff reported the matter to the Court for appropriate action. The Subordinate Judge directed the Commissioner to verify the matter, and on his visiting the premises on 21st April, 19,79, the Commissioner found the information given by the plaintiff, viz., the breaking open of the sealed premises, to be true. The Commissioner noticed respondents 2,3,9 and 11 to be seated in the Mill premises. The Commissioner also noticed the lock put up by him to be missing and likewise, the account books also to be missing. He therefore, inferred that the account books had been Stealthily removed from the premises after the lock was broken open and entry gained into the premises. Thereupon, the Commissioner submitted a second report to the Court stating that the warrant of commission was not capable of execution and therefore, he was returning the warrant unexecuted.