Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

Muniyaselvam vs Jeyamani

Madras High Court|04 October, 2017
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 04.10.2017 CORAM THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE A.SELVAM and THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.KALAIYARASAN Contempt Petition[MD] No.1254 of 2017 in W.P.[MD] No.4 of 2017 Petitioner Respondent Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, praying to punish the respondent/contemnor herein for his deliberate and willful disobedience of the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 03.01.2017 in W.P.[MD] No.4 of 2017 on the file of this Hon'ble Court amounting to contempt of court under the contempt of courts Act, 1971.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ayyanar Premkumar For Respondent : Mr.M.Govindan, Spl. Govt. Pleader O R D E R [Order of the Court was made by A.SELVAM, J.] This Contempt Petition has been filed praying to punish the contemnor, since he failed to comply with the condition imposed in the order dated 03.01.2017 passed in W.P.[MD] No.4 of 2017.
2. It is averred in the petition that the contempt petitioner as petitioner in W.P.[MD] No.4 of 2017 on the file of this Court praying to direct the first respondent/contemnor to remove the encroachments alleged to have been made by the second respondent in survey Nos.305/1 and 305/2, Kadampodai Village, Mudukulathur Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. Further, it is averred in the petition that in W.P.[MD] No.4 of 2017, a specific direction has been given to the contemnor/first respondent to remove all encroachments alleged to have been made by the second respondent in the survey numbers mentioned therein. Since the contemnor has failed to comply with the condition, this petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader are present.
4. It is represented on the side of the contemnor that in pursuance of the order dated 03.01.2017 passed in W.P.[MD] No.4 of 2017, the alleged encroachments have already been removed.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also conceded the representation made on the side of the contemnor.
6. Considering the aforesaid factual circumstances, the relief sought in the Contempt Petition has become infructuous.
7. In fine, this petition is dismissed as infructuous.
gya To The Tahsildar, Mudukulathur Taluk, Mudukulathur, Ramanathapuram District.
[A.S., J.] [P.K., J.] 04.10.2017 A.SELVAM, J.
and P.KALAIYARASAN, J.
gya Cont. Petn.[MD] No.1254 of 2017 in W.P.[MD] No.4 of 2017 04.10.2017
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Muniyaselvam vs Jeyamani

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
04 October, 2017
Judges
  • A Selvam
  • P Kalaiyarasan