CRP/4303/2024 of R. SRIVIDYA Vs SATYALAKSHMI ALIAS LAKSHMI on 11 November 2026

ORDER

This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 05.06.2024 passed in I.A.No.16 of 2023 in O.S.No.672 of 2020 by the I Additional District Court, Coimbatore, wherein the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff to refer the matter to the

High Court to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents, came to be dismissed by the Court below.

2. Heard learned counsel on either side and carefully perused the materials available on record. This Court also went through the impugned order.

3. The petitioner is the plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S.No.672 of 2020 seeking the relief of partition and for allotment of 5/16th share in item Nos.1 to 7 and 1/4th share in item No.8 and for other consequential reliefs. The petitioner filed I.A.No.2 of 2020 in O.S.No.672 of 2020 for an injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from encumbering or alienating the suit properties pending disposal of the suit and I.A.No.3 of 2020 in O.S.No.672 of 2020 for appointment of receiver. I.A.No.2 of 2020 in O.S.No.672 of 2020 came to be partly allowed by the Court below by order dated 15.03.2022 with regard to Item Nos.2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8.

4. The application for appointment of receiver was necessitated with respect to item Nos.1 and 4 of the suit property on the ground that the second respondent/second defendant was indulging in acts of waste, misfeasance and malfeasance and that a receiver must be appointed to take charge and control of Karpagam Abarna Maligai and Karpagam Jewellers. This application filed in I.A.No.3 of 2020 in O.S.No.672 of 2020 came to be partly allowed by the Court below in the following terms: “In the result this petition stands partly allowed with the following observations:- the petitioner Srividhya and the 1st respondent Sathyalakshmi @ Lakshmi are hereby appointed as Receivers to take charge and control of Karpagam Abarna Maligai and manage the same.

the Receivers so appointed shall maintain the accounts of the day- to-day activities of the business and should submit the account particulars every four months before this Court till the disposal of the suit.

the Registry is directed to call for the list of Panel Auditors from the Institute of Chartered Accountant, Coimbatore and after obtaining the particulars, an Auditor will be appointed to help and assist the Receivers in maintaining the accounts.

the Receivers are responsible for any loss occasioned to the property by their willful default or gross negligence.

As regards to the 4th item Karpagam Jewellers, the same to be managed by the 2nd respondent but the account particulars to be furnished to this Court once in 4 months till the disposal of the suit.

The Receivers shall carry and continue with the development work in the said business.

the Receivers are entitled to a remuneration of Rs.25,000/- each out of the profit of the business and the same to be properly accounted.

the Receivers shall maintain proper account of the business with the help of the Auditor, who is to be appointed.

the remuneration of the Auditor is fixed at Rs.15,000/- per month, subject to ratification by this Court as and when any request is made for additional remuneration by the Auditor.

10) Both parties are at liberty to approach this Court for any clarification or further direction in executing the duties of the Receivers.

11) As regard the prayer for appointing Receiver to the 4th item, the petition stands dismissed.

12) For procuring name list of Auditor's from the Institute of Chartered Accountant by the Registry. Call on 23.03.2022.”

5. After the appointment of the receiver, a memo came to be filed before the Court below seeking certain clarifications. The said memo was considered by the Court below and an order was passed on 29.07.2022 in the following terms: So it is hereby ordered to send communication to Indian overseas bank to recognize the petitioner as a Court appointed receiver and permit her to operate the bank account of Karpagam Abarna Maligai maintained in the said bank. Coming to her claim to confer her the power to draw cheques for the Karpagam Aparna Maligai, this Court is of the view that she cannot be granted unilateral cheque drawing power. As per the order she has to necessarily manage the concern alongwith her mother. Hence the Banks are hereby directed that fresh cheque books are to be given to Karpagam Aparna Maligai with cheque drawing powers collectively to the petitioner and the 1st respondent. The cheque book in use is to be returned to the bank. The 1st respondent shall file an affidavit that no cheque leaves of the earlier cheque books of Karpagam Aparna Maligai issued by the above said banks are retained by her. Considering the Authority given to the petitioner and the 1st respondent as receivers in I.A.No.3 of 2020 the GST portal has to be necessarily operated by them hence 1st respondent is directed to sign necessary application by including the name of the petitioner as a Receiver to operate GST portal. With respect to the drawer keys of the office table of Karpagam Aparna Maligai the 1st respondent is permitted to keep the Keys but a duplicate is to be given to the petitioner. The parties are directed to ensure that except the two set of keys no other key is used. All the fixed deposits and investments of Karpagam Aparna Maligai are to be handed over to the Auditors for safe custody and a list of the same is to be filed before this Court by the 1st respondent. If any amount is to be taken from the fixed deposits or investments for the developments of the business a permission is to be obtained from this Court. This Memo is recorded accordingly.”

6. I.A.No.16 of 2023 in I.A.No.3 of 2020 in O.S.No.672 of 2020 came to be filed before the Court below to refer the matter to the High Court to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents on the ground that there was a gross violation of the order passed by the Court and in spite of the interim order passed, the first respondent redeemed all the mutual funds and the fixed deposits amounting to Rs.6.50 crores as nominee and she has credited the proceeds in her account initially and subsequently, transferred the same to the account of respondents 2 and 3. There was also suppression of accounts and therefore, contempt proceedings must be initiated against them for violating the order passed by the Court below in I.A.No.3 of 2020 in O.S.No.672 of 2020.

7. The Court below, after considering the rival contentions, came to a conclusion that the order passed by the Court below has not been violated and consequently, the petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed before this Court.

8. The main ground urged before this Court is that the Court below directed respondents to hand over all the fixed deposits and investments of Karpagam Maligai to the auditors for safe custody, whereas this direction was not complied with. Apart from that, mutual funds and fixed deposits were redeemed by the first respondent and it has been transferred to the account of respondents 2 and 3 and the same was done without getting permission of the Court.

9. On carefully going through the order passed by the Court below, it is seen that the Court below has recorded the fact that the direction was issued in I.A.No.3 of 2020 in O.S.No.672 of 2020 based on the memo dated 10.06.2022 only to deposit the fixed deposits and investments of Karpagam Maligai, which is entirely different from item No.8 of the suit property. No specific direction was issued insofar as item No.8 of the suit property is concerned. Apart from that, the first respondent has only received the amount in her capacity as a nominee and has also admitted that the petitioner also has a share and she is ready to provide the accounts for the amount received by her as a nominee.

10. The Court below is the best Judge to understand the scope of the order passed and consider whether the order passed has been violated. The Court below, on proper understanding of the order, came to a conclusion that the order passed has not been violated. Such finding rendered by the Court below cannot be subjected to interference merely on the ground that this Court could arrive at a different conclusion on the scope of the order. That exercise will be beyond the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

11. Learned counsel for petitioner placed before this Court certain materials to substantiate as to how the respondents have violated the order passed by the Court below. These materials were gathered recently and the Court below did not have the advantage of looking into these materials.

Therefore, this Court, for the first time, cannot assess those materials while testing the order passed by the Court below.

12. In the light of the above discussion, the impugned order is sustained. It is left open to the petitioner to file a fresh application seeking modification/clarification of the earlier orders based on the materials gathered by the petitioner and the same shall be considered by the Court below on its own merits and in accordance with law after granting opportunity to all parties concerned within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of filing of the fresh application by the petitioner. In the result, this civil revision petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. 11-11-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No gm To The I Additional District Court, Coimbatore.

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J. gm Civil Revision Petition No.4303 of 2024 11-11-2026