ASSISTANT DIVISIONAL ENGINEER HIGHWAYS AND RURAL WORKS TITTAGUDY TALUK AND POST SOUTH ARCOT DISTRICT Vs. ANDAL ANIMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals can be disposed of in common. The factual background behind these two Appealswiil have to be necessarily traced. On 26.4.1990, C.R.P.No.1290 of 1990, which a revision preferred under Art.227 of the Constitution of India by the respondent, was disposed of by the learned single Judge of this Court in the following terms: ?I do not think that this is a fit case where this Court can interfere under Art.227 of the Constitution of India. Admittedly, the trial Court has issued only notice in I.A.No.2249 of 1989, an injunction application. A counter appears to have been filed to that application on 9.4.1990. According to Mr.Vijayan, learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter stands posted to 3.5.1990 for filing a counter to the application for expediting the hearing. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, I think that a direction is to issue to the trial Court to dispose of I.A.No.2429 of 1989, according to law and on merits, on 3.5.1990 itself, will suffice. I am told that in view of the pendency of the injunction application, the respondents are taking steps to put up constructions. Under those circumstances, the trial court is directed to pass an order in I.A.No.2429 of 1989, injunction application according to lawand on merits, without fail on 3.5.1990. This revision petition is dismissed with the above directions.

(2.) THE District Munsif, Vridachalam, was the first-respondent in the revision. THE appellant herein was the third-respondent in the revision. THE revision was disposed of by the learned single Judge at the admission stage itself, without notice to the respondents. Complaining that the application I.A.No.2429 of 1989 was not disposed of within the time as directed by the learned single Judge, the respondent preferred Contempt Application No.160 of 1990. In the contempt application, the District Munsif, Vridachalam, was the first respondent and the appellant herein was the second respondeat. THE prayer in Contempt Application N0.160 of 1990 runs as follows:

(3.) THEN we come to the averments found in paragraph 8 of the counter-affidavit of the appellant, extracted already. We can only characterise the averments as foolhardy and being the result of a misconstruction and misunderstanding by the appellant of the order made by this Court in the revision. The appellant need not have indulged in exposing his understanding and construction of the order of this Court. Yet he did it. But, the moot question is, do the said averments found in paragraph 8 of the counter-affidavit of the appellant show that he by any act or omission of his, assisted or procured the breach of the order of this Court, by the District Munsif, Vridachalam. Nothing to that effect is evident and has been made out. While the construction or understanding of the order of the is Court and further exposing them as the appellant did, cannot be commended, it is very difficult to found a basis for contempt on them. It has been already noticed that there is total lack of allegation that the appellant either by any overt act or omission of his, impeded or hindered the disposal of I.A.No.2429 of 1989 by the District Munsif, Vridachalam. It has been always countenanced that power to punish for contempt should be sparingly and circumspectly used and only when it is found to be a case of deliberate contempt. The indiscretion of making the averments in paragraph 8 of the counter-affidavit has been realised by the appellant when he took out Sub-application No.309 of 1990 and he has sufficiently exhibited the repentant mood as we could see from the following averments found in the affidavit filed therein: ?While filing the said counter-affidavit, I had made an inadvertent statement that the stipulation of time by this Honourable Court cannot by any means be construed in strict sense as the time for the compliance. I have since realised that I ought not to have made the statement and that whenever a time limit is set up by this Honourable Court the same should be complied with without fail. I sincerely apologise for my inadvertent statement referred to above. I pray that this Honourable Court may be pleased to forgive me and accept my apologies. ??.. I respectfully submit that I and sincerely sorry for my averments made in paragraph 8 of my counter-affidavit. Only out of ignorance I had made those averments. There is absolutely no intention to disobey the orders of this Honourable Court. There was no wilfulness in my conduct. I apologise again for my averments in paragraph 8 of my counter-affidavit.? Certainly we can take note of the is attitude of the appellant.