w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

M.S. Suresh v/s R. Shyamma Kumar, J.D.A.Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, Egmore & Others

    Sub Application No. 34 of 2019 in Contempt Petition D.No. 111484 of 2018

    Decided On, 14 March 2019

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras


    For the Petitioner: P.L. Narayanan, Advocate. For the Respondents: -------

Judgment Text

(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 151 of C.P.C. to grant leave to the petitioner to file the Contempt Petition D.No.111484 of 2018 against the respondents.)

This Sub Application is filed seeking leave to the petitioner to file contempt petition against the respondents arising out of an order passed in W.P.No.28100 of 2008 dated 29.04.2010.

Heard Mr.P.L.Narayanan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

3. The above said writ petition was filed by one M.Gokulakrishnan against the following persons arrayed as respondents 1 to 4 therein.

"1. The Commissioner of St.Thomas Mount

Panchayat Union,


Chennai 64.

2. Indian Bank,

ARMB Branch,

No.55, Ethiraj Salai,

Chennai 8.

3. The Recovery Officer,

DRT-1, Spencers Towers,

Anna Salai, Chennai 2.

4. J.D.A.Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd.,

Rep. by its Managing Director,

1st Floor, Casa Blanks Complex,

Casa Major Road,

Egmore, Chennai 6."

The said writ petition was disposed of on 29.04.2010 with a direction to the respondents therein not to interfere with the rights of the petitioner therein over the common areas, road and park, which are the subject matter of the writ petition with further observation that regarding the other aspects covered under the Sale Certificate, the petitioner has to seek his relief before the appropriate forum.

4. Now, the present Sub Application is filed by a third party to the above writ petition seeking leave to file a contempt petition alleging that the said order is violated. Admittedly, the writ petitioner is not before this Court and making any complaint as though the order passed in the said writ petition is violated.

5. Perusal of the said order passed in the writ petition would show that it is the relief granted in personam and not in rem. Therefore, if there is any violation of the said order, only the said petitioner can come and complaint before this Court. It is not so in this case. On the other hand, it is the case of the petitioner that by virtue of the said order passed in the above writ petition, he is also entitled to the relief, which is being denied by the present respondents, out of whom, only the first respondent was the party as fourth respondent in the above writ petition and the respondents 2 and 3 are not parties there at all. Therefore, I do not find that the petitioner is having any locus standi to file the present application, that too, to initiate contempt proceedings against the present respondents, out of whom, the respondents 2 and 3 are not parties therein. If at all, the petitioner wants to claim any relief against these respondents, he has to work out his remedy before the appropriate forum in a manner known to law and not by filing a contempt petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to rely on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2003) 3 SCC 171, Om Prakash Jaiswal vs. D.K.Mittal, to contend that even a third party can invite attention of the Court about the alleged commission of contempt. In this case, as already pointed out, it is not the case of the petitioner that the order passed in the writ petition is violated against the writ petitioner, who obtained such order. On the other hand, the petitioner herein seeks to enforce the said order for his benefit also by way of filing the present contempt petition. I think that such course of action cannot be permitted by allowing the petitioner to pursue contempt proceedings.

7. Another Division Bench decision of this Court dated 11.09.2006 in the case of Dr.T.Mathu vs. N.K.Jinna and another, is sought to be relied on by the petitioner's counsel. The facts and circumstances of the case before the Division Bench are totally different and distinguishable and therefore, I do not think that the above said decision would help the petitioner in any manner. Even otherwise, perusal of the said decision would show that furnishing an information would enable the Court to enquire into

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

the matter even by way of suo motu contempt if necessary. In this case, as I have already pointed out that the petitioner has not made any averment in the affidavit that the respondents in the writ petition has violated the order passed therein against the writ petitioner's interest and that the relief granted in the writ petition being in personam and not in rem, I find no reason to grant leave to the petitioner. Accordingly, the Sub Application is dismissed.