(Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 to punish the Respondent for misuse of power and post, wilfully, knowingly and deliberately disobeying the orders of the Division Bench of this Court dated 11.08.2017 made in Contempt Petition Sr.No.18117 of 2017.)

M. Venugopal, J.

Preface:

1. The Petitioner / Party-in-person has filed the present Contempt Petition seeking to pass an order by this Court to punish the Respondent wilfully, knowingly and deliberately disobeying the orders of the Hon'ble Division Bench dated 11.08.2017 made in Contempt Petition Sr.No.18117 of 2017.

2. Heard the Petitioner on the 'Maintainability of the present Contempt Petition'.

3. Earlier, this Court, while dismissing the Contempt Petition Sr.No.18117 of 2017 on 11.08.2017, at Paragraph No.37, had observed the following:

“37. In fine, the Contempt Petition is dismissed. Since the C.M.A No.92 of 2015 is pending on the file of Learned XIXth Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai (arising out of the Orders passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.17292 of 2014 dated 11.11.2014 in O.S.No.6407 of 2014 on the file of XVIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai) and further, this Court keeping in mind that nearly three years have rolled by, not expressing any opinion on the merits of the pending matters before the concerned Courts and also by exercising its sound judicial discretion, directs the Learned XIXth Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai to dispose of the pending C.M.A.No.92 of 2015 within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, of course, after providing adequate opportunities to the respective parties. Equally, this Court also directs the Learned XVIIIth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai to dispose of I.A.No.10124 of 2015 (Impleading Petition) in O.S.No.6407 of 2017 within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, of course after providing enough opportunities to the respective parties. It cannot be gainsaid that the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court while disposing of the Main Suit as well as Civil Miscellaneous Appeal shall pass a reasoned, speaking Judgment on merits in a fair, just in an impartial, unbiased and dispassionate manner. The respective parties are directed by this Court to lend their assistance and unstinted cooperation to the trial Court as well as to the Appellate Court in regard to the completion of respective proceedings in O.S.No.6407 of 2014 and C.M.A.No.92 of 2015 (Pending on their File) within the time adumbrated by this Court. Soon after disposal of the Main Suit in O.S.No.6407 of 2014 and C.M.A.No.92 of 2015, the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court shall send a complete and comprehensive compliance report addressed to the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court without fail.”

Petitioner's Pleas:

4. The stand of the Petitioner is that in W.A.No.188 of 2016, this Court on 19.02.2016 had directed the Revenue Authorities not to interfere until the title is settled by the Civil and Appellate Courts etc., and further at Paragraph No.16 of the said Writ Appeal, it is observed as under:

“16. Be that as it may, this Court, on a careful consideration of the contentions advanced by the Appellant [Party-in-Person) and also this Court, on going through the impugned order dated 21.09.2015 in W.P.No.13169 of 2015 passed by the Learned Single Judge, inter alia to that effect

'....... Thus, the writ petition stands disposed of by observing that the Civil Court including the Trial Court or the Appellate Court, which is hearing the appeal filed against the interlocutory application are expected to dispose of the same without placing any reliance upon the joint patta issued by the third respondent. It is also made clear that it is open to the parties to approach the third respondent after the disposal of the suit and placing reliance upon the same the third respondent has to act.', is of the considered view that the said order is Just, Fair and Valid one, in the eye of Law and requires no interference. Consequently, the Writ Appeal fails.”

5. The Petitioner points out that one Tmt.Thennarasi, wife of Sekar had suppressed the already disposed of the case in W.A.No.188 of 2016 and W.P.No.38555 of 2015 and Crl.O.P.No.22443 of 2015 dated 19.02.2016, 19.02.2016, 22.02.2016 and 29.02.2016. Further, she had suppressed the pending civil disputes, viz., O.S.No.6407 of 2014 and C.M.A.No.92 of 2015 on the file of the Learned XVIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and the Learned XIX Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai respectively. Moreover, notice in W.P.No.17058 of 2016 was not served on him on the instruction of said Thennarasi and the Ameen has made an endorsement “Door Locked” and also that the said Thennarasi was not impleaded.

6. The Petitioner submits that the present Contempt Petition is filed against the Respondent on the grounds of Misuse of Power, Post and Writing Orders in Disobedience to the directions issued by this Court, with an intent to save the Respondents 1 to 5 from punishment.

7. The Petitioner proceeds to state that 5 persons / Appellants preferred an Appeal in C.M.A.No.92 of 2015 against the order passed in I.A.No.17292 of 2014 in O.S.No.6407 of 2014 before the Learned Principal District Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and that the Learned Principal District Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai made over the matter to the Learned XIX Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai on 09.07.2015 and that the Respondent had not recorded the Appellants presence at the time of calling in the docket orders and in the main Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, C.M.P.No.5 of 2016 was only recorded and that C.M.P.No.52 of 2015 and C.M.P.No.46 of 2016 were suppressed. Added further, M.C.No.1 of 2017 [Contempt of Court Petition] and all other Civil Miscellaneous Petitions were suppressed and above all, ad-interim status quo was not granted from 09.07.2015 till date.

8. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the I.A.No.15611 of 2017 [Status Quo Petition] was dismissed by the concerned Court. His plea is that although 20 documents were filed, the Status Quo Petition was dismissed. Also that, an order was passed to put him in jail in contempt proceedings and there were no independent witnesses on 04.11.2016 and only Subordinate Court Staff members were made as witnesses by the Respondent.

9. The Petitioner contends that the Establishment Wing of the City Civil Court, Chennai recorded only the complaint of the Respondent / Officer dated 04.11.2016 and he and his 4 sisters' complaint was not recorded in the proceedings of the Principal District Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in Dis.No.4120/2017/Statistics dated 24.07.2017. In fact, he and his four sisters' complaint dated 16.11.2016 was received by the Office of the Registry of the City Civil Court, Chennai [Establishment Wing] in Sl.No.16344/16-E1.

10. The Petitioner points out that a Show Cause Notice in M.C.No.1 of 2017 in C.M.A.No.92 of 2015 was issued and one side order was passed by referring the matter to the Learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town in C.C.No.2248 of 2017 and the Respondent not granted Status Quo from 09.07.2015 till date.

11. It is represented by the Petitioner that the Respondents in C.M.A.No.92 of 2015 are land grabbers only and whereas Document No.730 of 1992 did not say that 'Passage is Common to All' and that the Police Officers of Villivakkam, Chennai had not registered FIR against the Respondents in C.M.A.No.92 of 2015, despite direction given in Crl.O.P.No.22443 of 2015 dated 29.02.2016. In substance, the stand of the Petitioner is that the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court had passed a wrong and erroneous order as 'Passage is Common'. Even though it is an admitted fact that Muthuraman and Thennarasi in their Partition Deed Document No.6056 of 2014 in Paragraph Nos.8 and 12 and in the sketch admitted that passage belong to “Rajendran and his Four Sisters”, it was not mentioned by the Learned trial Judge as well as the Appellate Judge in C.M.A.No.92 of 2015.

12. Continuing further, the Petitioner contended that the trial and Appellate Courts had stepped out of their jurisdiction by not perusing the valid documents and by non-application of mind had crushed his fundamental rights to the property knowingly and wilfully.

13. The Petitioner submits that he had tendered an unconditional apology in his counter to M.C.No.1 of 2017 in C.M.A.No.92 of 2015 and even then his apology was not accepted and it is projected by the Petitioner that the Respondent had failed to discharge the duties in accordance with Law and had also failed to protect the Majesty of Justice by floating the orders.

14. It is the case of the Petitioner that the present Contempt Petition is maintainable on the ground of failure to identify the disputed town Survey Number and its enjoyers. Further, in C.M.A.No.92 of 2015 and I.A.No.10124 of 2015 in O.S.No.6407 of 2014, orders were not passed on merits and that title was created without single proof of evidence in respect of T.S.No.24, Block No.61, Konnur village, Villavakkam Chenni 49. Further, the Contempt Petition is maintainable during the pendency of M.C.No.1 of 2017.

15. The Petitioner submits that this Court in W.P.No.13169 of 2015 dated 21.09.2015 and in W.A.No.188 of 2016 dated 19.02.2016 had directed the Trial and Appellate Courts of City Civil Court, Chennai to identify the land extents owned by the Petitioner and his four sisters and the Respondents in C.M.A.No.92 of 2015 and in O.S.No.6407 of 2014 etc., but the Courts had not identified the same.

Contempt Jurisdiction:

16. It is to be relevantly pointed out by this Court that the 'Contempt Jurisdiction' is to be exercised sparingly and not casually. Undoubtedly, initiation of vexatious proceedings in Court amounts to 'Contempt of Court'. Further, only such directions, which are explicit in a Judgment or Order or are plainly self evident that should be taken into account for the purpose of consideration, as to whether there was any disobedience or willful violation of the same. It is to be remembered that a Court of Law is to ensure that while considering a contempt plea, the power available to the Court in other corrective jurisdiction like 'Review' or 'Appeal' is not trenched upon, as per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2014 Supreme Court 950 [Sudhir Vasudeva, Chairman and MD, ONGC and Others V. M.George Ravishekaran and Others].

17. The power to punish a person for Contempt is a rare and special power, which is a drastic one and if it is misdirected, it will curb the liberty of a person charged with 'Commission of Contempt'. That apart, any direction issued or decision made by a Court of Law on the merits of dispute between the parties will not be in the exercise of jurisdiction to punish for contempt, in the considered opinion of this Court.

18. Requirements for Contempt:

18.1. In order to prove that an individual had deliberately and wilfully committed an act of Contempt, two salient ingredients are to be fulfilled.

(i) It is to be established that an order / Judgment was passed by the Court, which either directs certain things to be carried out by an individual or to restrain such person or persons from doing certain acts and further that the said person or persons had knowledge of the order.

(ii) It is to be established that notwithstanding the knowledge of such an order the individual concerned had deliberately and wilfully violated the same with an intention of lowering the dignity and image of the Court, as per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court Salauddin Ahmed V. Samta Andolan reported in 2012 Criminal Law Journal Page 4564 at Special Page 4572 (SC).

18.2. Everyone is bound by the Law, however, if there is any infraction of action in violation of Law laid down by a Court of Law, appropriate remedy is to correct by means of a Judicial Review, but, not by means of 'Contempt Proceedings'. If some Judicial Order / Judgment is passed based on bona fide belief, then, such Order / Judgment is not open for action against the concerned Judicial Officer. However, a great care and caution is required to be taken by a person, who expresses his fair opinion as a 'Freedom of Expression', as per Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, which is available as an essential right. Also that, a fair and reasonable expression of opinion of an Order or Judgment [being a Public Document] relating to an Administration of Justice may not constitute 'Contempt'. Added further, no Homo-Sapien in his occupational action can claim infallibility, as long as his life exists.

19. Contempt of Court:

19.1. It is not enough for the purpose of visiting a Judicial Officer with the penal consequences of proceedings in Contempt, simply because he committed an error of Judgment or Order passed by him, is in excess of authority vested in him. Moreover, an error must be a wilful one proceeding from improper or corrupt motives in order that he may be punished for Contempt, as per decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.S.Roy V. State of Orissa and Others AIR 1960 Supreme Court at Page 190.

19.2. It is to be pointed out that an unfounded and uncalled for allegation against a Judge amounts to Contempt of Court, as per decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.P.Sawhney V. Life Insurance Corporation of India, reported in 1991 (2) Mah. L.R. 353 at Page 355 (S.C.). Further, where a litigant deliberately used insulting language to overawe the Court with a view to secure a favourable order, he is guilty of Contempt of Court, as per decision Mohammed Zahir Khan V. Vijai Singh, reported in A.I.R. 1992 S.C.Page 642 at Special Pages 643 and 644. That apart, the allegations that the Judge while passing an Order did not apply her mind amounts to Contempt, as per decision Ajay Harkerni V. State of West Bengal 1992 (2) Calcutta L.T. Page 379 at page 372.

19.3. It is to be mentioned that after the deliverance of an Order / Judgment, by the Judge or the Jury, the same may be open to criticism and if the said criticism does not attribute any bias or unfair motive or it does not tend to impair or diminish the authority of the Court of Law to create an impression in the Public Mind destroying its faith in the Administration of Justice or lower the authority of Courts of Law, the extraordinary remedy of Contempt may not be resorted to.

19.4. It is remembered that a fair/reasonable criticism is not an unwelcome one. Be it noted, that it is the primordial duty of a Court of Law to act with great care and caution with a view to find out that its powers are not misused/abused by the frivolous/vexatious/dishonest litigations and that neither the private or public interest is put in peril.

Citation:

20. At this juncture, this Court worth recollects and recalls the evergreen observations of the Lord Atkin in the illuminating decision of Andre Paul Terence Ambard V. Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago reported in AIR 1936 Privy Council 141 (B) wherein it is observed as under:

“But whether the authority and position of an individual Judge or the due administration of justice is concerned no wrong is committed by any member of the public who exercises the ordinary right of criticising in good faith in private or public the public act done in the seat of justice. The path of criticism is a pubic way; the wrong-headed are permitted to err therein provided that members of the public abstain from imputing improper motives to those taking part in the administration of justice, and are genuinely exercising a right of criticism and not acting in malice or attempting to impair the administration of justice, they are immune. Justice is not a cloistered virtue: she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments of ordinary men.”

Glimpse of Relevant Provisions of Civil Procedure Code:

21. It is of prime importance to take into account of the ingredients of Section 107 Civil Procedure Code, which provides that the Appellate Court shall have the same powers and shall perform as nearly as may be the same duties as are conferred and imposed Courts of Original Jurisdiction in respect of Suits instituted therein. Further, Section 104 r/w Order 43 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code expressly provides a forum for filing of an Appeal falling under Classes of Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC. Likewise, an Appeal will lie against an order under Section 104 r/w Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC where the 'Orders' against which appeal would lie have been made mention of. In fact, Section 104 of Civil Procedure Code applies to the proceedings before the trial Judge in the High Court, read with Order 43 Rule 1, Order 49 and Sections 4 and 5.

22. Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code is a power vested in the High Court to supervise the Subordinate Courts. The jurisdiction exercised by the Court under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code is termed as 'Revisional Jurisdiction'. Only when a case falls within the ambit under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, a Revision will be entertained. The Power of the High Court under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code can be invoked in cases in which no Appeal lies to the High Court and the case was determined by any Court subordinate to such High Court and such subordinate Court appeared:

a. To have exercised a jurisdiction not vested by it in Law; or

b. To have failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it by Law; or

c. To have acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

High Court's Revisional Power:

23. Moreover, in exercise of its Revisional Power, it is not the domain of High Court to enter into the merits of evidence. Where there is no error of Law apparent on the face of record, the order shall not be interfered by the High Court in Civil Revision Petition. The Hon'ble High Court is to find out whether the requirements of Law were duly and properly obeyed by the Court whose order in the subject of Revision and whether the irregularity as to failure or exercise of jurisdiction is such as to justify interference with the order. Where the court below is arrived at a finding, which suffer from jurisdictional errors, the High Court's interference is not unwarranted in such a contingency, in the considered opinion of this Court.

24. Also, it cannot be ignored that the High Court in Revision, ought not to interfere with the Order, which is a just and valid one. In short, in the absence of any jurisdictional error, the High Court will not interfere in its Revisional Jurisdiction. Further, a Revision against an Interlocutory Order, which does not finally decide the litigation is not maintainable and the remedy for the affected party is to project an Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as per decision Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad V. Philomena Education Foundation of India reported in 2008[1] Andhra Law Times, Page 670.

Gist of High Court's Circular:

25. The Hon'ble High Court in its Circular P.Dis.No.101/85 dated 17.06.1985 in R.O.C.No.2065/85 F1 had observed the following:

“Several instances have come to the notice of the High Court that whenever certain specific directions are given by the High Court to the Subordinate Courts, particularly directions –

(1) to dispose of any proceeding pending on their file, within a specified time-limit, or

(2) to record a finding on any issue or fact referred to therein by the High Court under Order XLI, Rule 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, within a specified time-limit,

the Subordinate Courts concerned, neither dispose of such proceeding within the time-limit specified, record the finding or the fact and submit the report to the High Court within the time-limit specified by the High Court nor week from the High Court any extension of time well in advance for complying with the directions given by the High Court.

The High Court view seriously such lapses and delays of the Subordinate Courts in carrying out the directions given by the High Court.

All the Subordinate Courts are hereby informed that whenever any direction, as stated supra, is given by the High Court, the Subordinate Courts concerned –

(1) Should dispose of the proceeding pending on their file within the time specified in the order of the High Court and report the fact to the High Court immediately after disposing of the proceeding concerned; and

(2) Should make a request to the High Court for extension of time for carrying out the directions, well in advance of the date specified in the order of the High Court, stating the reasons therefore, and the further time required, if for any reason the subordinate Court concerned is not able to comply with the order of the High Court within the time specified.”

An Appraisal:

26. It comes to be known that C.M.A.No.92 of 2015 was disposed of by the Learned XIX Additional District Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai on 24.11.2017. In respect of C.C.No.2248 of 2017 against the Petitioner [party-in-person], the case was posted to 25.06.2018 for cross examination of P.W.1 to P.W.4.

27. It appears that C.R.P.No.812 of 2018 was filed before this Court as against the Judgment in C.M.A.No.92 of 2015 dated 24.11.2017 on the file of XIX Additional District Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. It appears that I.A.No.10124 of 2015 in O.S.No.6407 of 2014 on the file of Learned XVIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court was disposed of on 28.03.2018. Also I.A.No.17292 of 2014 was disposed of on 18.04.2015.

28. Insofar as the suit in O.S.No.6407 of 2014 on the file of Learned XVIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai is concerned, the said suit was filed on 13.11.2014 and that on 28.03.2018 orders were passed in I.A.No.10124 of 2015 [Impleading Petition] in O.S.No.6407 of 2014 dismissing the application without costs. Furthermore, I.A.No.15361 of 2017 [Amendment Application under Order VI Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code] was filed by the Plaintiffs. Further, the I.A.Nos.15361 of 2017 [Amendment Petition] and I.A.No.5492 of 2018 [Petition to implead the pleadings in I.A.No.15361 of 2018] are pending for filing counter of Respondents 1 to 5 on the file of trial Court as on date and from 07.06.2018, the case was adjourned to 28.06.2018, because of the pendency aforestated I.A.Nos.15361 of 2017 and 5492 of 2018 in O.S.No.6407 of 2014, obviously, the suit in O.S.No.6407 of 2014 is not yet disposed of. In short, both the Interlocutory Applications Nos.15361 of 2017 and 5492 of 2018 are pending on the file of Learned XVIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, along with the main suit in O.S.No.6407 of 2014.

29. In the light of aforestated qualitative and quantitative discussions and also when it is not proved to the subjective satisfaction of this Court that there has been a particular / specific violation of the Judgment dated 19.02.2016 passed by this Court in W.A.No.188 of 2016 and also this Court bearing in mind an important fact that C.M.A.No.92 of 2015 was disposed on 24.11.2017 by the Learned XIX Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai also that when I.A.No.10124 of 2015 [Impleading Petition] was disposed of on 28.03.2018 in O.S.No.6407 of 2014 on the file of Learned XVIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court then, filing of the instant Contempt Petition on his side is Inlimini, not maintainable in the eye of Law because of the reason the Petitioner has projected the present Contempt Petition based on ill-conceived notions and misconceptions in the eye of Law.

Disposition:

30. In fine, the Contempt Petition is dismissed. Since the I.A.Nos.15361 of 2017 and 5492 of 2018 in O.S.No.6407 of 2014 are pending on the file of Learned XVIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court Chennai along with main suit in O.S.No.6407 of 2014, then, this Court, on the basis of Equity, Fair Play, Good Conscience, even as a matter of prudence, directs the Learned XVIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai to dispose of I.A.Nos.15361 of 2017 and 5492 of 2018 as well as main suit in O.S.No.6407 of 2014 within a period of five months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, of course, after granting sufficient opportunities to the parties. It is needless for this Court to make a significant mention that the Learned XVIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, while disposing of the main suit in O.S.No.6407 of 2014 as well as I.A.Nos.15361 of 2017 and 5492 of 2018, shall pass a reasoned Order / Judgment in a dispassionate and impartial manner on merits, uninfluenced and untrammelled with any of the observations made by this Court in the present Petition. Since the main suit in O.S.No.6407 of 2014 was filed as early as on 13.11.2014 and more than three years have rolled by, the Learned XVIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in the fitness of things, is directed to dispose of the main Suit as well as Interlocutory Application Nos.15361 of 2017 and 5492 of 2018 within the adumbrated time of five months determined by this Court. Soon after disposals, the Learned XVIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai is directed to send a complete and comprehensive report to this Court keeping in view of the High Court's Circular in R.O.C.No.2065/85 F1 in P.Dis.No.101/85 dated 17.06.1985, by addressing a communication to the Registrar [Judicial] of this Court without fail. As the case in C.C.No.2248 of 2017 is posted to 25.06.2018 for cross examination of P.W.1 to P.W.4 on the file of the Learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, this Court is not expressing any opinion on the said pending case. The parties are directed to co-operate and lend their unstinted assistance to the trial Court with a view to dispose of the main suit in O.S.No.6407 of 2014 as well as I.A.Nos.15361 of 2017 and 5492 of 2018 well within the time determined by this Court. Liberty is also granted to the parties to raise all factual and legal issues before the trial Court.