P. VIMAL Vs. M. KANNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Intra-Court Appeal is preferred by the Appellants as against the Order dtd. 10/8/2016 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the Sub-Application No. 607 of 2015 in Contempt Petition No. 692 of 2015 filed by the First Respondent herein under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure to implead the Appellants as party Respondents to the Contempt proceedings.

(2.) The facts which are required for consideration of this Appeal are narrated in brief as under.

(3.) The First Respondent herein has given a Complaint dtd. 30/7/2012 against the Appellants herein to the Superintendent of Police (Anti-Land Grabbing Cell)/Economic Offences Wing, Villupuram, alleging that the Appellants have created a forged and fabricated Power of Attorney and Sale Deed in respect of his property without any valid title. According to the First Respondent, the subject matter of the property comprised in Survey No. 157 (New Survey No. 59/4B) admeasuring an extent of 2.66 acres out of 11.13 acres situated in Salavathy Village, Tindivanam Taluk was purchased by his wife in an Auction conducted by the Court in an Insolvency proceedings on 11/1/1996 and a Sale Certificate dtd. 27/2/1996 was executed in favour of his wife which was registered as Document No. 290 of 1996 on the file of Sub-Registrar, Avarapakkam. The First Respondent also stated in his Complaint dtd. 30/7/2012 that he has filed a Suit in O.S. No. 341 of 2006 on the file of District Munsif Court, Tindivanam against the Appellants herein for a bare Injunction. Further, according to the First Respondent, the Second Respondent herein did not take any action on his Complaint, dtd. 30/7/2012 and therefore, he has approached this Court with Criminal Original Petition No. 3372 of 2013 praying for a direction to direct the Second Respondent herein to register a case on the basis of his Complaint dtd. 30/7/2012. By Order, dtd. 29/4/2013, this Court issued a direction to the Second Respondent herein to register a case, if any cognizable offence is made out in the Complaint given by the First Respondent. Pursuant to such direction, the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Anti-Land Grabbing Cell), Villupuram conducted a Preliminary Enquiry and closed the Complaint given by the First Respondent on 30/7/2012 by submitting a Report dtd. 27/5/2015 concluding that the dispute raised in the Complaint is purely Civil in nature and such dispute has to be adjudicated by a Competent Civil Court. Aggrieved by the said Order of closure of the Complaint dtd. 27/5/2015, the First Respondent herein filed Contempt Petition No. 2477 of 2013 before this Court alleging that the Second Respondent has disobeyed and flouted the Order passed by this Court on 29/4/2013 in Crl.O.P. No. 3372 of 2013. According to the First Respondent, the Order of Closure dtd. 27/5/2015 passed by the Second Respondent is in gross violation of the Order dtd. 29/4/2013 passed in Crl.O.P. No. 3372 of 2013. However, pending Contempt proceedings, a case in Crime No. 23 of 2014 has been registered against the Appellants for the alleged offence punishable under Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506(i) of Indian Penal Code on 28/3/2014. Therefore, when the Contempt Petition was taken up for hearing, this Court, by an Order dtd. 4/4/2014, closed the Contempt Petition No. 2477 of 2013 and directed the Investigation Officer to proceed with the investigation in Crime No. 23 of 2014 and to file a Charge-sheet before the Competent Court within a period of four months. Pursuant to such direction, the Respondent/Police, after completion of investigation and analysing all the documents, closed the First Information Report by filing a referred Charge-sheet No. R.C.A.07/14 on 29/9/2014. Aggrieved by the same, the First Respondent has once again filed another Contempt Petition No. 692 of 2015 as against the Second Respondent herein alleging disobedience of the Order dtd. 4/4/2014 in Contempt Petition No. 2477 of 2013 by contending that the Second Respondent herein did not file a Charge-sheet, as directed by this Court. During the pendency of Contempt Petition No. 692 of 2015, the First Respondent has preferred the instant Sub-Application No. 607 of 2015 in Contempt Petition No. 692 of 2015 under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading the Appellants as party Respondents to the Contempt Petition No. 692 of 2015 on the allegation that the Sale Deed dtd. 5/6/2006 executed by the Second Appellant in favour of the First Appellant is null and void and also to declare that the subsequent Power of Attorney Deed dtd. 21/5/2010 executed by the First Appellant also as void. On notice, the Appellants have entered appearance on 5/10/2015 and filed a Counter Affidavit contending that they are not proper and necessary party to the Contempt Petition as they did not violate any of the directions issued by this Court. The Appellants have also raised a Preliminary Objection with regard to the maintainability of the Sub-Application by stating that in the Contempt proceedings, adjudication of title dispute is legally impermissible and consequently they sought for dismissal of the Sub-Application. In fact, when the Sub-Application No. 607 of 2015 in Contempt Petition No. 692 of 2015 was listed for hearing before the learned Single Judge on 10/8/2016, the name of the Counsel for the Appellants was not printed in the Cause List and therefore, the Counsel for the Appellants could not appear before the learned Single Judge on the date of hearing of the Sub-Application No. 607 of 2015 in Contempt Petition No. 692 of 2015. However, in spite of filing of the Counter Affidavit, the Sub-Application No. 607 of 2015 was ordered on 10/8/2016 and the Appellants were impleaded as party Respondents in Contempt Petition No. 692 of 2015. When the Appellants came to know about the Order dtd. 10/8/2016 passed by the learned Single Judge impleading them as party Respondents, they have filed Contempt Appeal SR No. 73597 of 2016. The Registry has raised a doubt as regards maintainability of Contempt Appeal SR No. 73597 of 2016, as it was filed against the Interim Order passed by the learned Single Judge in Sub-Application No. 607 of 2015. Therefore, the matter was posted before the first Division Bench of this Court for maintainability on the ground that the Contempt Appeal is maintainable only when an Order of Punishment is passed in the Contempt proceedings. When the Contempt Appeal SR No. 73597 of 2016 was listed for maintainability, the First Division Bench of this Court passed an Order on 25/11/2016, which reads as follows: