Arulmigu Kasi Viswanathar thirukovil Vs Paul Francis — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2025)

Arulmigu Kasi Viswanathar thirukovil Vs Paul Francis — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

Issue for consideration

Whether the contemnor/2nd respondent deliberately and wilfully disobeyed the order of this Court dated 27.09.2024 in W.M.P(MD).No.19546 of 2024 in W.P(MD).No.23059 of 2024, and whether he should be punished for contempt. +1 more

Court's answer

The Court found, prima facie, that the contemnor flouted the order of the Court and proceeded with the construction despite the subsistence of an order of injunction; however, there is a dispute regarding ownership of the property, specifically S.No.82/13, claimed by the temple but contended by the respondent to belong to the panchayat.

Ratio / Principle

Since a disputed question of fact exists, it is not appropriate for the Court to punish the contemnor for contempt at this stage; it is open to the temple to establish its rights in the manner known to law.

Key takeaways

The Court recorded that the respondent treated the order of the Court contumaciously by continuing with the construction despite knowledge of it and without approaching the Court for further order, and that the petition to vacate the order was filed only after the constructions were completed; the Court recorded its displeasure while closing the contempt petition.obiter¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - S.11 - Alleged deliberate and wilful disobedience of order dated 27.09.2024 in W.M.P(MD).No.19546 of 2024 in W.P(MD).No.23059 of 2024, whereby the learned Judge had directed that no construction shall take place in the property of the temple - Respondent (Block Development Officer) continued construction despite subsistence of injunction - Held, prima facie, the contemnor flouted the order, but ownership of S.No.82/13 is disputed: the temple claims it as its property while the respondent contends it belongs to the panchayat - Disputed question of fact; not appropriate to punish the contemnor for contempt at this stage; temple at liberty to establish its rights in the manner known to law - Respondent's conduct recorded as contumacious, the petition to vacate having been filed only after completion of construction; displeasure recorded - Contempt petition closed; appreciation expressed to Mr.K.R.Manimaran, learned Advocate Commissioner.

CONT.P(MD).No.2734 of 2024

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED :14.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

CONT.P(MD).No.2734 of 2024 in W.M.P(MD).No.19546 of 2024 in W.P.No(MD).23059 of 2024

Arulmighu Kasi Viswanathar Thirukovil, rep., by its Executive Officer, M.Jeya

... Petitioner

Vs.

Paul Francis, Block Development Officer, Block Development Office, Arimalam Panchayat Union, Pudukkottai District.

... Respondent

PRAYER: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to punish the contemnor/ 2 nd respondent for his deliberate and wilful disobedience of the order of this Court made in W.M.P(MD).No.19546 of 2024 in W.P(MD).No.23059 of 2024 dated 27.09.2024.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Mathavan For Respondents : Mr.Ajmalkhan Additional Advocate General assisted by Mrs.S.Jeya Priya Government Advocate (Advt Commissioner) : Mr.K.R.Manimaran

1/4

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

O R D E R

CONT.P(MD).No.2734 of 2024

This Contempt Petition has been filed to punish the contemnor/ 2 nd respondent for his deliberate and wilful disobedience of the order of this Court made in W.M.P(MD).No.19546 of 2024 in W.P(MD).No.23059 of 2024 dated 27.09.2024.

2. Although this Court finds, prima facie, that the contemnor has flouted the order of this Court and proceeded with the construction despite the subsistence of an order of injunction, it is seen that, in the order which is the subject matter of contempt, the learned Judge has directed that no construction shall take place in the property of the temple. There appears, however, to be a dispute regarding the ownership of the property. Insofar as S.No.82/13 is concerned, the petitioner temple claims the same to be its property, whereas the respondent contends that it belongs to the panchayat.

3. Since there exists a disputed question of fact, it may not be appropriate for this Court to punish the contemnor for contempt at this stage. It is open to the temple to establish its rights in the manner known to law.

2/4

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CONT.P(MD).No.2734 of 2024

4. However, the Court would once again emphasis that the respondent has treated the order of this Court contumaciously by continuing with the construction despite knowledge of the same and without approching this Court for further order. Admittedly, the petition to vacate the order has been filed after the constructionswas completed. Recording the Court's displeasure, this Contempt Petition is closed. The Court also wishes to record its appreciation for the work done by Mr.K.R.Manimaran, learned Advocate Commissioner.

14.11.2025

NCC:yes/no Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no Rmk

To

Block Development Officer, Block Development Office, Arimalam Panchayat Union, Pudukkottai District.

3/4

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CONT.P(MD).No.2734 of 2024

P.T.ASHA, J.

Rmk

CONT.P(MD).No.2734 of 2024 in W.M.P(MD).No.19546 of 2024 in W.P.No(MD).23059 of 2024

14.11.2025

4/4

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis