- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010018192023 NC: 2026:KHC:46336-DB CCC No. 35 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.VIVEKANANDA CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 35 OF 2023 BETWEEN: DR. M.A.M.RAMASWAMY CHETTIAR OF CHETTINAD CHARITABLE TRUST REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE MR. A.C.MUTHAIAH S/O MR.CHIDAMBARAM CHETTIAR AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS RESIDENT OF ADAYAR VILLA GANDHIMANTAPAM ROAD KOTTURPURAM CHENNAI-600 085 TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED HEREIN BY HIS GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR. A. NATARAJAN S/O MR. M. AJJA GOWDER AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS RESIDING AT MUSCAL ESTATE POLLIBETTA, COORG (18/45) KAIRBETTAKILHATTY KOTHAGIRI THE NILGIRIS 643 217. …COMPLAINANT (BY SRI. N.S.SRIRAJ GOWDA, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by PAVITHRA B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010018192023 NC: 2026:KHC:46336-DB CCC No. 35 of 2023 AND: MR. M.A.M.R. MUTHAIAH @ MR. IYYAPPAN S/O R.SEKKAPPA CHETTIAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT RANISEETHAI HALLA BUILDING, 603, ANNASALAI CHENNAI-600 006 TAMIL NADU …ACCUSED (BY SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. NISCHAL DEV B.R., ADVOCATE) THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, R/W RULE 3 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS) RULES, 1981, PRAYING TO HOLD THAT THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF CONTEMPT OF ORDER DATED 10.8.2022 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN RFA NO.920/2021 AS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.VIVEKANANDA - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010018192023 NC: 2026:KHC:46336-DB CCC No. 35 of 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) This Contempt of Court Case is filed alleging non-compliance of an interim order passed by this Court dated 10.06.2022 in RFA.No.920/2021. The interim order reads as follows: “Parties shall not precipitate the issue till the next date of hearing.” 2. It is submitted that the said interim order has been extended from time to time. 3. The learned counsel for the complainant submits that in spite of the interim order, the accused has precipitated the issue without maintaining status-quo as on the date of the order and has taken away agricultural produce from 45 acres out of the scheduled property. It is submitted that an FIR has also been lodged against the accused. 4. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the accused, on the other hand, contends that there is no clarity to the interim order and that the regular first appeal was filed - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010018192023 NC: 2026:KHC:46336-DB CCC No. 35 of 2023 from an order of the trial Court rejecting the plaint on the ground that the complainant had not proved either title or possession in respect of the property in question. It is further submitted that in an injunction suit filed by the accused, there is an ex-parte order of ad-interim injunction as against the respondent from interfering with the possession of the accused in respect of the property. 5. It is submitted that the Will on the basis of which the complainant claims title is pending in a probate proceeding before the Madras High Court, and that the complainant has proved neither title or possession in respect of the property. 6. Having considered the contentions advanced, we notice that the interim order, contempt of which is alleged, is only not to precipitate the issue. We notice that there is an earlier ad-interim injunction in OS.No.88/2021 by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Virajpet. That ex-parte interim injunction is granted against the complainant restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession of the property of the plaintiff therein who is the accused herein. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010018192023 NC: 2026:KHC:46336-DB CCC No. 35 of 2023 7. It is an admitted case that, though, the order was passed on 21.10.2021, the same remains in force and has not been vacated till date. 8. In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the contention that there is a wilful disobedience of the interim orders passed by this Court cannot be accepted. The contempt of court proceedings are, therefore, closed without prejudice to the contentions of the parties in the proceedings pending between them. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (T.P.VIVEKANANDA) JUDGE PB List No.: 3 Sl No.: 23