(1.) PETITION filed under sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondents for their act of contempt in disobeying the order dated 05.1.2009 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2009 in O.S.No,4 of 2009 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Gudiyattam.) This contempt petition arises out of violation of the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Gudiyattam in I.A.No.1 of 2009 in O.S.No,4 of 2009, dated 05.1.2009 in respect of seizure of a vehicle.
(2.) BY the said order, Mr. V. Ranjith Kumar was appointed as the Advocate Commissioner to seize the vehicle in question and hand over its custody to the petitioner. Pursuant to the same, the Advocate Commissioner has seized the vehicle and also filed his report. In this connection, it is pertinent to point out here that before the seizure of the vehicle, the Commissioner has sought for the permission of the Court to seek the help of the police for seizing the vehicle and only pursuant to that, he went there to seize the vehicle. The report filed by the Advocate Commissioner in respect of the seizure of the vehicle is extracted below:- -TAMIL-
(3.) THE very representation that the payment, as sought for by the plaintiff, has been made will not cure the defect or the misdeeds done by the defendants, especially when the order of the Court has been flouted and violated using manpower and muscle power. THE attitude of the contemnors needs a stringent warning so as to prevent any such recurrence in future and also to act as a deterrent to others from flouting Court orders. Hence, we are constrained to punish the contemnors for their act of contempt. No doubt, at this point of time, the learned Advocate appearing for the contemnors pleaded leniency on the ground that the entire amount as claimed in the plaint, viz., Rs.1,13,540/- has been deposited by him in the Court on the same day. However, we are inclined to punish him by way of imposition of fine only to show that the action done by the contemnors is not in accordance with law.