Cont.P.Nos.1723 and 1725 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 23.01.2026

DELIVERED ON : 11.02.2026

CORAM :

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JOTHIRAMAN

Cont.P.Nos.1723 and 1724 of 2025

D.Chandrasekaran

son of Dakshnamoorthy

No.9, Vijaya Ragavacharri Road,

T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017

Represented by power agent

A.Dakshnamoorthy .. Petitioner in both Cont.Ps. /

Decreeholder

Versus

1.Mrs.J.Flora .. Respondent / Contemnor

in Cont.P.No.1723/2025

2.Govindaraj

Sub Registrar of Virugambakkam

Office of the Sub Registrar of Virugambakkam,

Chennai.

3.Preetha,

Sub Registrar (Incharge) Virugambakkam,

Office of the Sub Registrar of Virugambakkam,

Chennai. ... Respondents 1 and 2 /

Contemnors in Cont.P.No.1724/2025

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

Cont.P.Nos.1723 and 1725 of 2025

4.V.Uma Maheswari,

Audit Assistant,

Registrar’s Office,

Kallakurichi District..Impleaded 3

rd

respondent

vide order dated 06.01.2026

in Cont.P.No.1724 of 2025

Prayer in Cont.P.No.1723 of 2025: Contempt Petitions filed under Section

10 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 to punish the contemnor for willfully

disobeying the prohibitory order dated 21.11.2023 made in E.P.No.1781 of

2022 in O.S.No.4194 of 2019 on the file of the IX Assistant City Civil

Court, Chennai.

Prayer in Cont.P.No.1724 of 2025: Contempt Petitions filed under Section

10 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 to punish the contemnor for willfully

disobeying the communication order dated 26.09.2024 made in E.P.No.1781

of 2022 in O.S.No.4194 of 2019 on the file of the IX Assistant City Civil

Court, Chennai.

For Petitioner: M/s.S.Sai Shankar & A.Murali

in both Cont.Ps.

For Respondents: Mr.P.Harish

Government Advocate

for respondents in Cont.P.No.1724 of 2025

Mr.P.Jesus Moris Ravi

for respondent in Cont.P.No.1723 of 2025

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

Cont.P.Nos.1723 and 1725 of 2025

COMMON ORDER

M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

Cont.P.No.1723 of 2025 has been filed by the Decree holder against

the Judgment Debtor to punish for wilfully disobeying the prohibitory order

dated 21.11.2023 made in E.P.No.1781 of 2022 in O.S.No.4194 of 2019 on

the file of the 9

th

Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai [hereinafter referred as

“Court below”]. Cont.P.No.1724 of 2025 has been filed against one

Tr.Govindaraj, Sub Registrar of Virugambakkam, Chennai and Mrs.Preetha,

Sub Registrar (In charge), Virugambakkam, Chennai to punish the

respondents from wilfully disobeying the communication order dated

26.09.2024 made in E.P.No.1781 of 2022 in O.S.No.4194 of 2019 on the file

of the 9

th

Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. Brief facts of the petitioner / decree holder is follows:

2.1. The petitioner is the Power Agent of the plaintiff one

D.Chandraekaran, who is the son of the petitioner. The petitioner has filed a

Suit in O.S.No.4194 of 2019 on the file of the 9

th

Assistant City Civil Court,

Chennai for recovery of a sum of Rs.25,30,000/- from the contemnor /

Mrs.J.Flora. The above said Suit was decreed on 25.11.2019. Thereafter,

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

Cont.P.Nos.1723 and 1725 of 2025

the petitioner had filed an execution petition in E.P.No.1781 of 2022, in

which the Judgment Debtor entered appearance through her counsel,

however, she was set exparte as she did not file counter in the execution

petition and vide order dated 01.08.2023, the Court below ordered

attachment of the property i.e., residential premises of the Judgment Debtor.

Consequent to the attachment order dated 01.08.2023, a prohibitory order

dated 21.11.2023 was passed restraining the Judgment Debtor to deal with

the property. The aforesaid order dated 21.11.2023 was affixed on the door

of the attachment property on 27.11.2023 and the Court bailiff served a copy

of the attachment property to the office of the Sub Registrar concerned. The

concerned Bailiff has also filed a report before the Court below. In such

circumstances, the Judgment Debtor filed E.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2024 to set

aside the exparte order and the same is pending. Therefore, the Judgment

Debtor having participated in the execution proceedings, is aware of the

entire execution proceedings and the orders passed thereon. Though the

attachment order dated 01.08.2023 was served on the Sub-Registrar,

Virugambakkam, deliberately the office of the Sub-Registrar,

Virugambakkam did not reflect the order of attachment in the Encumbrance

Certificate.

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

Cont.P.Nos.1723 and 1725 of 2025

2.2. The petitioner also made attempts to enter and reflect the

attachment into the encumbrance certificate, whereas the Sub Registrar,

Virugambakkam had issued a letter dated 29.12.2023 to the petitioner stating

that there is no specific order from the Court to reflect the order of

attachment in the encumbrance certificate. In such circumstances, a memo

dated 03.08.2024 was filed before the Court below stating that the Sub-

Registrar, Virugambakkam is refusing to reflect the attachment order in the

encumbrance certificate. Thereafter, the Court below passed an order dated

30.08.2024 directing the Bailiff to go to the office of the Sub Registrar again

to reflect the order of attachment in the encumbrance certificate.

2.3. In pursuant to the aforesaid order, a communication order was

passed on 26.09.2024 and the Court bailiff served the aforesaid order on

27.09.2024, directing to reflect the order of attachment dated 01.08.2023 in

the encumbrance certificate and the same was received on 27.09.2024 by the

In-charge of the Sub-Registrar concerned. However, the Sub-Registrar

concerned deliberately did not reflect the attachment order in the

encumbrance certificate inspite of the specific direction dated 30.08.2024.

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

Cont.P.Nos.1723 and 1725 of 2025

Taking advantage of the fact that the attachment order was not reflected in

the encumbrance certificate, the Judgment Debtor has sold the property

under attachment to a third party by way of sale deed and the same has been

registered by the Sub-Registrar, Virugambakkam. Therefore, the Judgment

Debtor / contemnor in Cont.P.No.1723 of 2025 and the contemnors in

Cont.P.No.1724 of 2025 are to be punished for wilfull disobedience of the

communication order dated 26.09.2024.

3. Heard both sides and perused the entire materials available on

record.

4. It is seen from the records that the 2

nd

contemnor in Cont.P.No.1724

of 2025, namely Tmt.Preeta has filed an affidavit before this Court dated

06.01.2026 wherein it has been stated that she was employed as an Assistant

in the Registration Department and she was posted in the office of the Sub-

Registrar, Virugambakkam, as Assistant on 29.02.2024. The 1

st

contemnor /

Tr.Govindaraj was the head of the SRO, Virugambakkam (on deputation)

from 07.07.2023 to 07.08.2024. Thereafter, the 1

st

contemnor was

transferred to SRO, Valavanur, Villupuram District and the post of Sub

Registrar, Virugambakka fell vacant and she was acting as In-charge Sub

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

Cont.P.Nos.1723 and 1725 of 2025

Registrar from 08.08.2024. On 27.09.2024, on account of official duty, she

went to the office of the Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Chennai

South and while she was not present in the office, a Form of Attachment

addressed to the Sub-Registrar was received by the then In-charge Sub

Registrar Mrs.V.Uma Maheswari and her signature was also affixed in the

said Form of Attachment.

5. The 2

nd

contemnor further stated in the said affidavit that the

following days i.e., 28.09.2024 and 29.09.2024 were Saturday and Sunday

and on 30.09.2024 evening, the said Form of Attachment was brought to her

notice by Mrs.V.Uma Maheswari. Since there were no details of Survey

Number in the said Notice of Attachment, necessary entry in the

encumbrance certificate could not be made immediately and the said Form

of Attachment was kept in the files for taking further action. For the period

from 01.10.2024 till 04.11.2024, she was in-charge for only one day i.e.,

03.10.2024 and she went on leave after handing over the charge and other

files to Mrs.V.Uma Maheswari and she was relieved from the SRO,

Virugambakkam on 04.11.2024 and was posted in the SRO, Alandur.

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

Cont.P.Nos.1723 and 1725 of 2025

6. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the

respondents / contemnors in Cont.P.No.1724 of 2025 would submit that

whatever stated by the 2

nd

contemnor / Tmt.Preetha in her affidavit is correct

and further would submit that on the date of serving of the order of

attachment, the 2

nd

contemnor was not the Sub-Registrar of Virugambakkam.

However, the order of attachment was served on 30.09.2024 and on that day,

one V.Uma Maheswari was the Sub-Registrar. In view of the above

submission, the Registry was directed to implead the aforesaid Tmt.V.Uma

Maheswari, Audit Assistant, Registrar’s office, Kallakurichi District as one

of the contemnors in Cont.P.No.1724 of 2025. Thereafter, this Court vide

order dated 12.01.2026, directed the learned Special Government Pleader to

intimate the newly impleaded contemnor to appear before this Court on

23.01.2026 and in pursuance to the order of this Court, the aforesaid

Mrs.V.Uma Maheswari, appeared before us on 23.01.2026.

7. It is seen from the typed set of papers that the petitioner / Decree

holder has filed a petition in E.P.No.1781 of 2022 in O.S.No.4194 of 2019 to

attach the immovable property of the Judgment Debtor / Mrs.J.Flora as per

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

Cont.P.Nos.1723 and 1725 of 2025

the decree passed in O.S.No.4194 of 2019 dated 25.11.2019 to release the

claimed amount of Rs.25,83,965/- in E.P.No.1781 of 2022, wherein the

respondent / Judgment Debtor Mrs.J.Flora has not chosen to file counter and

was set exparte on 06.03.2023. Upon hearing the petitioner / Decree Holder

side, the Court below, vide order dated 01.08.2023, has allowed the

execution petition and ordered to attach and sale of the schedule mentioned

immovable property belonging to the Judgment Debtor and also ordered

attachment of immovable property by 15.09.2023 and batta to be paid within

7 days. Thereafter, prohibitory order as per Form 24 dated 21.11.2023 has

been issued to the Judgment Debtor to appear before the Court on

07.12.2023, wherein the schedule of property is mentioned as all the piece

and parcel of 529.38 sq.ft. Undivided Share of Land in Flat No.A1, First

Floor, Jammalia’s Apartment, No.50/2, Arcot Road, Saligramam,

Chennai-600093 with four boundaries. The aforesaid attachment order was

communicated to the contemnors through bailiff on 27.11.2023 and to that

effect, a report was also filed before the Court below. Further the petitioner

has sent notice to the Sub-Registrar, Virugambakkam on 02.12.2023 and

requested to enter the attachment order in the Register of encumbrance

certificate. The 1

st

contemnor in Cont.P.No.1724 of 2025/ Govindaraj in-

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

Cont.P.Nos.1723 and 1725 of 2025

turn has sent a communication to the petitioner / Decree Holder stating that

he has received a letter addressed by the petitioner dated 02.12.2023 and

stated that the Court below has not ordered to reflect the attachment order in

the Register of encumbrance certificate and if the Court orders to reflect the

attachment in the encumbrance certificate, the Sub-Registrar will enter into

the Register of encumbrance certificate.

8. It is further seen from the typed set of papers that an application to

set aside the ex parte order was filed on 22.07.2023. Thereafter, on

30.08.2024, the Court below passed an order in the adjudication proceedings

recording the memo filed by the Decree Holder and directed continuation of

the attachment order. The Court below also directed the concerned bailiff to

once again communicate the order of attachment so as to ensure that the

attachment is reflected in the Register of Encumbrance Certificate. Pursuant

to the said direction, on 26.09.2024, batta was paid for communicating the

order of attachment to the Sub-Registrar Office and the concerned bailiff

filed a report on 27.09.2024 stating that the communication had been duly

served on the concerned Sub-Registrar Office.

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

Cont.P.Nos.1723 and 1725 of 2025

9. The newly impleaded contemnor, Tmt. V. Uma Maheswari, filed an

affidavit before the Court below in E.P. No.1781/2022 in O.S. No.4194/2019

stating that the order of the Court below was received by the office of the

Sub-Registrar, Virugambakkam, on 30.09.2024 and that she joined duty in

the said office only on 04.10.2024. It is further stated that the Judgment

Debtor executed a Sale Deed dated 22.11.2024 and presented the same for

registration and, upon perusal of the same, since there was no entry

regarding attachment in the Register of Encumbrance Certificate, she

registered the document as Doc.No.7915 of 2024.

10. From the documents annexed in the typed set of papers, it is seen

that the Court below passed an order of attachment on 01.08.2023.

Subsequently, a prohibitory order in Form No.24 dated 21.11.2023 was

issued and on 27.11.2023 communication of the attachment order to the

contemnors along with the bailiff report was ordered. On 09.12.2023, the

petitioner addressed a letter to the Sub-Registrar, Virugambakkam, Chennai,

requesting to make necessary entries in the Register of Encumbrance

Certificate so as to reflect the attachment in pursuance of the attachment

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

Cont.P.Nos.1723 and 1725 of 2025

order dated 01.08.2023. In response, the first contemnor, Govindaraj, by

communication dated 29.12.2023 informed the petitioner that there was no

specific direction by the Court below to make an entry in the Register of

Encumbrance Certificate with regard to the attachment. The Judgment

Debtor, J.Flora, also filed an application on 23.02.2024 to set aside the ex

parte order. While the said application was pending adjudication, the Court

below, by order dated 30.08.2024, directed that the order of attachment

already passed be once again communicated to the concerned Sub-Registrar

so as to ensure that the same is reflected in the Register of Encumbrance

Certificate. Pursuant to the said order, batta was paid on 26.09.2024 to

communicate the order to the concerned Sub-Registrar and the same was

duly served on the Sub-Registrar, Virugambakkam, on 30.09.2024 and the

bailiff report was also filed before the Court below. Though the

communication of attachment was received in the office of the Sub Registrar

on 30.09.2024, the attachment was not reflected in the encumbrance register.

Despite receipt of the communication from the Court below, the newly

impleaded contemnor, Tmt.V.Uma Maheswari, without properly verifying

the entries in the Register of Encumbrance Certificate, proceeded to register

the Sale Deed executed by the Judgment Debtor dated 22.11.2024.

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

Cont.P.Nos.1723 and 1725 of 2025

11. At this juncture, it is relevant to cite the judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang and others reported in

2021 SCC Online SC 29, has held as follows:

"49. It would be apposite to refer to Section 2(b) of the

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 which reads thus:-

“2. Definitions. - …..

(b) “civil contempt” means wilful disobedience to any judgment,

decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful

breach of an undertaking given to a court.”

50. It is thus clear that for bringing an action under the ambit

of civil contempt, there has to be a wilful disobedience to any

judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or

wilful breach of an undertaking given to the court."

12. In Re: Perry Kansagra .... Contemnor, reported in 2022 SCC

Online SC 1516, in a Suo-Motu Contempt Petition, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court has held as follows :

"30. We have already convicted Perry Kansagra for

contempt. The above referred facts are mentioned only to

demonstrate that the contemnor has deliberately and with a clear

intention committed egregious acts of contempt. These acts

constitute willful disobedience of the judgment, direction and order

of this Court coupled with willful breach of the undertaking given

by the Court which constitute civil contempt. The contemnor has

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

Cont.P.Nos.1723 and 1725 of 2025

falsely represented before the foreign jurisdiction that Indian

Courts have not sought the consent of Aditya and that the decision

of the Supreme Court of India is unenforceable. These acts clearly

lower the authority of this Court. We have also indicated that the

contemnor has interfered with the due course of judicial

proceedings and obstructed the administration of justice which is a

clear case of criminal contempt.

31. In the circumstances and in order to mention the majesty

of law, we must impose upon adequate punishment on the

contemnor. We have also noted that the contemnor never showed

any remorse or tender any apology for his conduct.

32. For the reasons stated above, we direct that the

contemnor be:

a) Punished with simple imprisonment for a term of six

months for civil contempt of Court for his acts of deliberate and

willful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court and to pay a

fine of Rs.12,50,000/- (Twelve Lakhs Fifty Thousand), in default

he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

b) Punished with simple imprisonment for a term of six

months for criminal contempt of Court for obstructing the

administration of Justice and lowering the authority of this Court

and to pay a fine of Rs. 12,50,000/- (Twelve Lakhs Fifty

Thousand), in default he shall further undergo simple

imprisonment for one month."

13. In Ajay Kumar Parasaramka v. Pradeep Kumar Rath reported

in 2022 SCC Online AP 817, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, has held

as follows:

"33. As discussed above, and in view of the findings

recorded by this Court in the above paragraphs, Respondent No.7 -

Tahsildar is liable for punishment as per Section 12 of the

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and thereby he is punished

sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of six

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

Cont.P.Nos.1723 and 1725 of 2025

(06) months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand

only). In the event of failure to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, Registrar

(Judicial) is directed to send copy of the order to the District

Collector, Visakhapatnam for recovery of amount of fine under the

Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 and by following

procedure as per law.

34. In the result, contempt case is partly allowed, directing

Respondent No.7 - Tahsildar, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam

District to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of six (06)

months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand

only). In the event of failure to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, Registrar

(Judicial) is directed to send copy of the order to the District

MSM,J CC No.947 of 2021 Collector, Visakhapatnam for recovery

of amount of fine under the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery

Act, 1864 and by following procedure as per law.

35. Respondent No.7 - Tahsildar, Gajuwaka Mandal,

Visakhapatnam District is directed to appear before the Registrar

(Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, on 18.04.2022. On his

appearance, the Registrar (Judicial) shall commit him to civil

prison in accordance with the order passed above."

14. The Government authorities are instrumentalities of the State or

the Administration since being also one of the litigant or party before a lis,

against whom if any order passed by the Court, if it is violated, certainly

those officials concerned of the Government or the employee or staff are

liable to be punished under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act.

Therefore in order to uphold and protect the majesty of this Court, it become

incumbent on the part of this Court to ensure that, no orders of this Court is

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

Cont.P.Nos.1723 and 1725 of 2025

wilfully disobeyed or violated. If it is not ensured, the faith and confidence

that the ordinary public of this great nation having in this judiciary would get

shattered.

15. In the case on hand, though the newly impleaded contemnor has

stated in her affidavit that she had joined duty only on 04.10.2024, it is the

bounden duty of the Sub-Registrar (In-charge) to duly verify the documents

presented for registration along with the encumbrance certificate in the

manner known to law. Despite the attachment order passed by the Court

below, the Judgment Debtor has chosen to execute the sale deed, which

clearly shows wilful disobedience to the attachment order of the Court below

dated 01.08.2023 as well as the subsequent prohibitory order dated

21.11.2023 and the Judgement Debtor taking advantage of the same had sold

the property which was under attachment to third parties and therefore, this

Court found them guilty of Civil Contempt.

16. Considering the nature of disobedience of the order of the Court

and to meet the ends of justice, the following orders are passed in these

contempt petitions:

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

Cont.P.Nos.1723 and 1725 of 2025

(I) The newly impleaded contemnor / Tmt.V.Uma Maheswari is liable

to be punished under Section 12(3) of the Contempt of Court Act and she is

imposed with a fine of Rs.2,000/- payable to the petitioner – Decree Holder.

(II) As far as the Judgment Debtor is concerned, this Court imposes

punishment of imprisonment for one month. Therefore, Tmt.J.Flora shall be

detained in a civil prison for the said period of one month.

(III) In respect of other contemnors, both the contempt petitions are

dismissed.

17. Accordingly, these Contempt Petitions are disposed of.

[P.V., J.] [M.J.R., J.]

11.02.2026

Index : Yes / No

Internet: Yes / No

Jvm

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

Cont.P.Nos.1723 and 1725 of 2025

P.VELMURUGAN , J.

and

M. JOTHIRAMAN, J.

Jvm

Common Order in

Cont.P.Nos.1723 and 1724 of 2025

11.02.2026

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