B RAMALINGAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) B. Ramalingam, formerly III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, chennai, now functioning as Additional District Judge-cum-Presiding Officer, Special Court, constituted under E. C. Act, Salem, is now facing the charge of contempt in the suo motu contempt proceedings initiated by this Division Bench.

(2.) THE circumstances under which the above proceedings were initiated against the Judicial Officer, in brief, are as follows: " (a) D. Geetha filed a suit in O. S. No. 6155 of 2001 before the XV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court , Chennai for declaration and injunction in respect of the suit property against her own mother D. Thulasi Ammal. (b) D. Thulasi Ammal, the mother also filed a suit against her daughter D. Geetha in O. S. No. 5798 of 2002 for the relief of injunction in respect of the same suit property. (c) During the pendency of these suits, both filed separate applications for interim injunction. THE learned trial Judge granted interim injunction in favour of the mother and dismissed the application for interim injunction filed by the daughter. (d) However, the interim injunction in favour of the mother was granted only for a limited period up to 18. 11. 2002. THE same was not extended in the next hearing in view of the fact that Order 39 Rule 3 C. P. C. was not complied with by the mother. (e) Against non-extension of the interim injunction, the mother filed C. R. P. No. 2112 of 2002 before the learned single Judge of this court, who in turn, heard both mother and daughter and allowed the civil revision petition by the order dated 24. 1. 2003 by extending the interim injunction in favour of the mother as against the daughter and directed the trial Court to give final disposal to the injunction application. (f) In the meantime, the daughter challenging the order of the trial Judge dismissing her injunction application, filed an appeal in c. M. A. No. 11 of 2003 before the III Additional Judge, City Civil Court , Chennai. THE same was admitted and notice was ordered. (g) When the C. M. A. was taken up for final disposal, the counsel for the mother, the respondent in C. M. A. brought to the notice of the iii Additional Judge that the High Court already passed an order an injunction in favour of the mother in C. R. P. No. 2112 of 2002 dated 24. 1. 2003 and requested the appellate Judge to dismiss the C. M. A. (h) However, the learned III Additional Judge by the order dated 5. 3. 2003 overruled the objection raised by the counsel for the mother and disregarded the order of the High Court and granted injunction in favour of the daughter as against the mother in respect of the same property. (i) Under those circumstances, the mother filed contempt petition against her daughter before the learned single Judge of this Court. (j) THE learned single Judge after hearing the parties found geetha, the daughter guilty of contempt and imposed a fine of Rs. 1,000/- by the order dated 17. 7. 2003. Challenging the said order, Geetha, the daughter filed contempt appeal before this Division Bench. (k) When this Division Bench heard the matter, it noticed that the learned III Additional Judge allowed the C. M. A. , in spite of the order of the learned single Judge of this Court and granted injunction in favour of the daughter in respect of the same suit property which is a counter to the injunction already granted by the High Court in favour of the mother. (l) This Division Bench considered the contempt appeal on merits. Even during the pendency of the appeal, when this Bench found that the iii Additional Judge committed serious misconduct by granting injunction which runs counter to the injunction granted by the High Court, issued notice to the learned III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, calling for an explanation to enable this Court to take further action either for contempt or for insubordination. (m) To our shock, we received the explanation from the learned Judge who is now functioning as Presiding Officer, Special Court constituted under E. C. Act, Salem, stating that since there was no order of stay in disposing of the C. M. A. , he disposed of the appeal on merits. (n) Since this explanation would indicate the conduct of the Judicial Officer making an attempt to justify his act, this Court decided to initiate separate contempt proceedings against the Judicial Officer. (o) This Court accordingly after disposal of the appeal confirming the order of the single Judge finding the daughter guilty of contempt by the judgment dated 18. 8. 2005, initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against the Judicial Officer. THE Judicial Officer on issuance of show cause notice, appeared before this Court and filed a counter affidavit on 29. 9. 2005. "

(3.) THOUGH initially we decided not to resort to the initiation of suo motu contempt proceedings straight away against the Judicial officer, we thought it fit to seek for explanation from the said Judge with reference to his act in granting injunction which runs counter to the injunction granted by the High Court in favour of the mother in order to decide further course of action. Accordingly, notice was issued to him seeking for explanation.