The respondent is tenant in the ground floor of Door No.21/82, 11th Cross Street, Anna Salai, Lakshmi Nagar, Porur, Chennai. She filed a suit against the 1st petitioner in O.S.No.339 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Poonamallee, for permanent injunction restraining the defendant/first petitioner from interfering with her peaceful peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit property except by due process of law. She also filed application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC for temporary injunction, in I.A.No.1517 of 2008 also obtained ex parte injunction order against the 1st petitioner. 1st petitioner appeared through counsel, filed her counter and the matter is pending for enquiry.
2. Thereafter, she filed an application in I.A.No.1662 of 2008 under Order 39 Rule 2(A)of CPC, praying the Court to punish the 1st petitioner by sending her to civil prison, not exceeding three months for committing the contempt of court by cutting electricity services and water connection to the suit property. In the said petition 1st petitioner was praying time for filing counter. The said petition was filed on 4.11.2008. The 1st petitioner on 7.11.2008 filed written statement in the suit, pleading that the suit property belongs to one Rajahamsan, husband of the defendant under whom the plaintiff's husband is tenant. Hence the respondent/plaintiff filed application in I.A.No.1787 of 2008 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC to implead the said Rajahamsan as party to the suit and I.A.Nos.1517 of 2008 and I.A.No.1662 of 2008. In the said petition notice was issued to the said Rajahamsan, who is 2nd petitioner herein and he appeared through lawyer on 1.12.2008. It was posted for counter on 1.12.2008. On that date, counter of R-2 was not filed and his counsel reported no instruction. In both the I.A.Nos. respondents, i.e., these petitioners were called absent and set ex parte and the petition for impleadment was allowed on 2.12.2008 in pursuance of which, the 2nd petitioner was added as a party in the I.As and in the Original Suit as well.
3. The 2nd petitioner filed suit in O.S.No.83 of 2009 on the file of the same Court against one S. Rupan, husband of the respondent, describing him as defendant in the suit property, for eviction and also for recovery of arrears of rent and future damages for use and occupation at Rs.5,000/- also. The second petitioner filed application in I.A.No.119 of 2009 in O.S.No.339 of 2008 under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, to reject the plaint and the same is pending for enquiry.
4. The respondent also filed an application in I.A.No.167 of 2009 in O.S.No.339 of 2008 under Section 151 of CPC, praying the Court to direct the Court Bailiff to break open the E.B.Box to gear up the switch box with assistance of Assistant Engineer, T.N.E.B., Porur and open the water connection junction valve put up by the respondents/petitioners herein, in the suit premises, by alleging that she got the order in I.A.No.1926 of 2008 on 23.12.2008, directing the defendants to restore the electricity connection and water connection to the suit property and in respect of the order of the Court they have not restored them and hence she has filed application for contempt of Court. In the said I.A., the trial Court passed orders as prayed for on 11.3.2009. On 2.3.2009, the petition was filed and the Court directed notice of hearing and counter by 11.3.2009 itself. The order was passed by the trial Court by stating that notice of hearing of the petition was given to the respondents' counsel.
5. In I.A.No.1662 of 2008, the matter had been posted for counter of the present petitioners on various dates from 7.11.2008 to 30.1.2009. Since counter was not filed and there was no representation for the respondents (these petitioners) on 23.12.2008 and on subsequent dates, on 30.1.2009, the trial Court passed an Order, directing the arrest of second respondent (second petitioner herein) who is alleged owner of the property by 12.2.2009. Hence both the petitioners filed the present revision petition before this Court.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that notice was not issued to the second petitioner and he did not know about the proceedings and hence revision petition may be allowed by setting aside the order passed in I.A.No.1662 of 2008 on 30.1.2009. It is contended in the grounds of revision that when the petition was filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, which is pending for enquiry, the court below should not have entertained the petitions after petitions filed by the respondent, that after allowing the impleading application no notice was served on the petitioner in the manner known to law and that the orders passed by the Court below without serving notice to the second petitioner are not sustainable. Merely because the petition under Order 7 Rule 11 is pending, there is no need for the Court to reject the Interlocutory application filed by any of the parties.
7. As far as the proceedings in I.A.No.1926 of 2008 are concerned, which is filed by the respondent for directing these petitioners to restore basic amenities of electricity service connection and water connection to the suit property, the court passed order allowing the application on 23.12.2008 by stating that in the impleading application, the second respondent had appeared through lawyer who filed vakalat, that later the advocate reported no instructions; that the court allowed the application and after impleading the second respondent in the suit, court issued suit summons to him which was refused to be received by the first respondent, wife of the second respondent and it has been returned, that since the first respondent is already a party to suit and both respondents are husband and wife and that the second respondent had knowledge about the proceedings. After observing as above, the court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the property who inspected the suit property and filed report stating that there were no electricity service and water connection to the above said property and hence the court below allowed the application in I.A.No.1926 of 2008.
8. Whatever may be the orders passed in I.A.No.1926 of 2008, they are not connected to the orders passed in I.A.No.1662 of 2008 which is the petition under Order 39 Rule 2(A) of CPC on contempt of Court. As for this petition, it was filed on 4.11.2008 and disposed on 30.1.2009. In the meanwhile, the petition for impleading the second petitioner was filed by the respondent and the same was allowed on 21.12.2008, subsequently he was impleaded as a party to two I.As. and also in the suit.
9. The fact of pendency of these petitions was not brought to the knowledge of the second petitioner even when I.A.No.1787 of 2008 was pending in which he appeared through lawyer. But his counsel reported no instructions and he was set ex parte. Sufficient opportunities have been afforded to the second petitioner to put forth his claim before the trial Court, however, he did not appear before the trial Court and file his counter, as per the respondent.
10. In I.A.No.1662 of 2008 notice was ordered on 4.11.2008 through Court to the respondent by 7.11.2008 Afterwards it was pending. It is stated that the respondent was represented by counsel and time was prayed for filing counter. On 30.1.2009, there was no representation and the order was passed. There is a mention in the order that "though Advocates are on boycott today, neither the respondent are present today." Hence the Court below passed order of arrest of this second petitioner. In view of this Court, when a contempt proceeding is pending, it is desirable to hear other side also and to pass necessary orders after observing the procedures.
11. As far as the proceedings in I.A.No.167 of 2009 are concerned, the Court below on 2.3.2009, directed notice of hearing and counter by 11.3.2009 and on 11.3.2009 passed a detailed order allowing the application. It is stated in the order that notice of hearing in the petition has been given to the respondent counsel, however, there is no mentioning about the appearance of the respondent's counsel or the party. Anyhow, the order in I.A.No.167 of 2009 shall hold good for the reason that basic amenities have to be provided to a tenant.
12. This Court takes a view that there was no sufficient notice to these petitioners while hearing the petition in I.A.No.1662 of 2008, which is the petition on contempt of Court and it is justifiable to remand back the said application to the Court below for fresh trial after affording ample opportunities to both parties. Hence the order passed in I.A.No.1662 of 2008 is set aside.
13. In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the Court below for fresh disposal. The learned Principal District Munsif is directed to restore I.A.No.1662 of 2008 on his file and dispose of the same on merits after affording ample opportunities to both sides. The petitioners are directed to restore basic amenities such as electricity and water connection to the suit property forthwith.