SHANMUGHAM Vs. KASTHURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred challenging an order for contempt initiated under Order 39 Rule 2A of Civil Procedure Code for an alleged violation of an interim order of injunction passed in I.A.No.39 of 2014 in O.S.No.6 of 2014 dated 04.02.2014.

(2.) In Items 10 & 7, a School functions, and according to the appellants, the school buildings are in Item 10, and the playground is in Item 7. According to the plaintiffs, the School and the playground are in Item 7 of the suit property.

(3.) A Commissioner was also appointed by the Court who visited the property on 12.04.2014 and filed an interim report. Again, the Commissioner has made another visit and filed his final report on 19.03.2015. It is seen from the interim report, that the Commissioner had visited the property where the school is functioning and observed the existence of unplastered, three storeyed building. It is not denoted in the interim report whether the school was functioning in Item 10 of suit property or in Item 7. In his final report, the Commissioner indicated that he has visited the property in Survey No.15/6B (described in Item No.7) and found a three storeyed building which was not plastered for 2/3rd portion, and that the rest of the building was plastered and white washed.