Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, A. Dakshnamoorthy, as power agent of his son D. Chandrasekaran, filed two contempt petitions. The first (Cont.P.No.1723/2025) was against Mrs. J. Flora, the judgment debtor, for willfully disobeying a prohibitory order dated 21.11.2023 passed in E.P.No.1781 of 2022 in O.S.No.4194 of 2019 by the IX Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. The second (Cont.P.No.1724/2025) was against Govindaraj and Preetha, Sub Registrars of Virugambakkam, for willfully disobeying a communication order dated 26.09.2024 in the same execution proceedings. The background is that the petitioner obtained a decree for recovery of Rs.25,30,000/- against Mrs. J. Flora on 25.11.2019. In execution, the court below passed a prohibitory order under Order 21 Rule 54 CPC on 21.11.2023, attaching the judgment debtor's property. The petitioner alleged that the judgment debtor alienated the property despite the order. The court below also issued a communication order on 26.09.2024 to the Sub Registrars to furnish details of properties. The petitioner claimed the Sub Registrars did not comply. The court examined the records and found that the prohibitory order was not served on the judgment debtor as required by Order 21 Rule 54 CPC, which mandates service on the judgment debtor. Therefore, there was no willful disobedience. Regarding the communication order, the court noted that it was merely a request for information and not a mandatory direction, and the Sub Registrars had responded. Consequently, both contempt petitions were dismissed. The court also observed that the petitioner could pursue other remedies available under law.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court - Willful Disobedience - Prohibitory Order Under Order 21 Rule 54 CPC - Service of Order - The decree holder alleged that the judgment debtor willfully disobeyed the prohibitory order dated 21.11.2023 passed in E.P.No.1781 of 2022. The court found that the prohibitory order was not served on the judgment debtor as required under Order 21 Rule 54 CPC, and therefore, there was no willful disobedience. The contempt petition against the judgment debtor was dismissed. (Paras 5-7) B) Contempt of Court - Willful Disobedience - Communication Order - Sub Registrars - The decree holder alleged that the Sub Registrars willfully disobeyed the communication order dated 26.09.2024 directing them to furnish details of properties. The court held that the communication order was only a request for information and not a mandatory direction, and the Sub Registrars had responded. Hence, no willful disobedience was made out. The contempt petition against the Sub Registrars was dismissed. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondents committed willful disobedience of the prohibitory order dated 21.11.2023 and the communication order dated 26.09.2024 passed in execution proceedings, warranting punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Final Decision
Both contempt petitions are dismissed. The court held that there was no willful disobedience of the orders. The petitioner is at liberty to pursue other remedies available under law.
Law Points
- Contempt of Court
- Willful Disobedience
- Prohibitory Order
- Order 21 Rule 54 CPC
- Service of Order
- Communication Order
- Execution Proceedings
