SHANTHA V PAI Vs. VASANTH BUILDERS MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), clause 15 of the Letters Patent and Rule 10 of the High Court Rules is directed against the order of dismissal of the Contempt Application No.170 of 1989 by the learned trial Judge, vide order dated 23/09/1989. It was held that the appellant had failed to establish that the respondent had violated any order of the Court. A short resume of the facts lending to the filing of Contempt Application No. 170 of 1989 and the present appeal need a notice at this stage.

(2.) The appellant filed W.P. No.4835 of 1989 and in W.M.P. No.7079 of 1989 filed therewith, sought an interim injunction restraining the respondent herein inter alia from carrying on any building or construction work over the site pending disposal of the Writ Petition. On 4/04/1989, an interim injunction was issued along with notice of the petition to the opposite side. According to the appellant, the order of the court was served on the respondent on 5/04/1989 but despite service, the respondent proceeded with the work of construction in the first and second floors by putting up brick wall on the southern side and plastering the interior of the walls. The appellant, through a telegram dated 8/04/1989, brought to the notice of the respondent that the order of the Court was being violated by him. In reply, the stand of the respondent, however, was that no order of the Court was being flouted in any manner. On 28/04/1989, after hearing the counsel for both sides, the learned trial Judge recorded an undertaking affidavit to the effect that the respondent herein will demolish the fourth floor (top floor) at his cost and expense, if the construction is held to be unauthorised and is not regularized. The Court also ordered, without prejudice to the contentions of either of the parties by way of interim arrangements, as follows :

(3.) The maintainability of the appeal, both under Section 39 of the Act and clause 15 of the Letters Patent, has been questioned by way of preliminary objections by the respondent.