SEVUGAPERUMAL CHETTIAR Vs. CHIDAMBARAM CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Contempt Application is to punish the respondents for having committed contempt of Court in trying to circumvent the decree in O.S. No. 135 of 1993 and nullify the effect of the decree therein by instituting several other proceedings in this Court as well as in the Civil Court. The facts of the case are as follows:

(2.) Let us now look at the number of proceedings filed by the fourth respondent and supported by respondents 1 and 2. The first is a Writ Petition No. 3934 of 1996, seeking a writ of mandamus to forbear respondents 1 and 2 (defendants in O.S. No. 135 of 1993) from permitting respondents 4 to 8 (plaintiffs O.S. No. 135 of 1993) from performing poojas and other activities in the temple. It goes without saying that the prayer in the writ petition is directly in conflict with the decree obtained in OS. No. 135 of 1993. However, when the writ petition was taken up for admission on 24.4.1996, it is admitted that the names of respondents 4 to 9 were deleted from the array of parties. The second proceeding initiated by the fourth respondent is by way of filing a suit O.S. No. 94 of 1996, on the file of the District Munsif, Aranthangi. This suit has been filed only by the fourth respondent and the defendants are only the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department and the Executive Officer of the Temple(second respondent). The prayer is to restrain the defendants from allowing the individuals to interfere with the conduct of Laksharchana worship and poojas by selling tickets and receiving offerings from the general public. It is clear mat this suit was also intended to nullify the decree in O.S. No. 135 of 1993. The said suit has subsequently been withdrawn before the contempt application was filed. The contention of the applicants is that the respondents are interfering with the course of justice and have thus committed contempt of Court.

(3.) While issuing notice on the Contempt Application, this Court wanted to verify the correctness of the allegation that the fourth respondent is a fictitious person. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, the respondents have in fact produced the fourth -respondent in Court and he has signed before this Court to indicate that he is not a fictitious person. In fact, in his counter affidavit, he says that he is a poojari by caste and plays the drum during festive occasions. He denies the allegation that he is a tool in the hands of first and second respondents and that he had filed the suits only for the purpose of safeguarding the interests of the temple and the general public. According to him. the applicants collect huge amounts of money by way of sale of tickets for the Laksharchana worship and that was precisely the reason why they obtained a decree in O.S. No. 135 of 1993. While stating that the scope for the proceedings initiated by him is different from O.S. No. 135 of 1993, he also tenders unconditional apology in the following words: