Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 106320 (MAD)

S. Ambigapathi v. R.Viajayakumar

CONT P/217/2025 · 2025-06-19

G Jayachandran

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Cont.P.No.217 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 19.06.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN Cont.P.No.217 of 2025 S.Ambigapathi .. Petitioner /Versus/ Mr.R.Viajayakumar, The Inspector of Police (L & O), C-1, Rural Police Station, Thiruvannamalai Rural, Thiruvannamalai. .. Respondent PRAYER: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act, pleased to punish the respondent in accordance with law for willful disobedience and non compliance of the order in W.P.No.14425 of 2024 dated 26.07.2024. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ambigapathi (Party in Person) For Respondent : Mr.S.Balaji Government Advocate (Crl.Side) O R D E R This Court, having earlier heard the petitioner, directed the police to provide protection to enable the petitioner to put up a compound wall as per the Court decree. The petitioner has now filed the 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.P.No.217 of 2025 contempt petition alleging that the police have not provided any such protection. 2. The affidavit filed by the respondent states that the police went to the spot to provide protection to the petitioner for putting up the compound wall. However, there was a discrepancy regarding the boundary and it was brought to the notice of the contemnor that the patta issued in favour of the petitioner had been cancelled. Hence, the order of this Court directing the police to provide police protection could not be complied. 3. The party-in-person submitted that the cancellation of patta is now the subject matter of challenge in W.P.No.15032 of 2025, which is pending before this Court. 4. This Court is of the view that, since there is a boundary dispute and the patta previously enjoyed by the petitioner now been cancelled and is now under challenge in the said writ petition, there is no fault or willful disobedience on the part of the respondent. Hence, this Contempt Petition stands closed. 5. The petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedy after the disposal of the writ petition, based on the outcome regarding the 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.P.No.217 of 2025 validity of the patta and the boundaries of the property. 19.06.2025 Index : Yes/No Neutral citation : Yes/No Speaking/non-speaking order rpl To 1.Mr.R.Viajayakumar, The Inspector of Police (L & O), C-1, Rural Police Station, Thiruvannamalai Rural, Thiruvannamalai. 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai G.JAYACHANDRAN , J. rpl 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.P.No.217 of 2025 Cont.P.No.217 of 2025 19.06.2025 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis