Mr. Balaji Maradapa, v. Tmt. R.Saranya,

ORDER Alleging a violation of the order dated 16.10.2025 in W.M.P.No.44375 of 2025 in W.P.No.39509 of 2025, Contempt Petition No.265 of 2026 was presented. When I took up the contempt petition for hearing, Mr.A.Gopinath, appearing for the contemnor, filed an affidavit undertaking that, whatever Page2 of 11 constructions had been taken place in violation of the order of interim injunction, had been removed and that the land had been restored to is original status as on the date of passing of the interim order. Recording the said submission, I closed the contempt petition.

¶2Thereafter, the present Sub-Application was filed, stating that after the contempt petition was closed, the respondent yet again violated the order of interim injunction. It was alleged that the respondent took advantage of the Court's vacation and proceeded further.

¶3Being satisfied with the photographs produced, pointing out the violation of the orders of interim injunction, I called Mr.C.Umashankar, who served the papers on Mr.A.Gopinath. Mr.A.Gopinath has filed two Government Orders.

¶4Mr.A.Gopinath, on instructions, stated that on account of a mistaken identity of the location where the construction materials had been placed, the contractor, engaged by the respondent, had placed the materials in the area covered by the writ petition. He added that on coming to know of the mistake, it was immediately rectified, and the construction boards, materials and other articles were removed from the site. I directed the contemnor to file an affidavit to that effect and listed the matter for today. When I took up the matter Page3 of 11 today, Mr.A.Gopinath has filed an affidavit and photographs to substantiate the plea he made on the previous occasion. The counter affidavit filed by the contemnor is scanned and extracted hereunder : Page4 of 11 Page5 of 11 Page6 of 11 Page7 of 11 Page8 of 11 Page9 of 11 Page10 of 11 Since the position has been restored, recording the affidavit of undertaking, the Sub Application is closed.

¶5The respondent is reminded that any further violation would not be countenanced by this Court. The consequences of yet another violation of the interim injunction might not be viewed as it has been done on the previous two occasions. To make it clear, this Court will not let the contemnor off the hook with a rap on the knuckles. 29-05-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order rpl/Lpp SUBoAPPLoNo.o567oofo2026 V.LAKSHMINARAYANANoJ. rpl/Lpp Sub-Appl.No.o567oofo2026 in Cont.P.No.o265oofo2026 29-05-2026 Page11oofo11

Page1 of 11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29-05-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN Sub-Appl.No. 567 of 2026 in Cont.P.No. 265 of 2026 Mr. Balaji Maradapa, S/o. Lakshmana Murthy, Golden Gate, No.35, Habibulla Road, T.Nagar, Chennai 17. ..Applicant Vs Tmt. R.Saranya, The Commissioner, Avadi Corporation, Avadi, Chennai - 600 054. ..Respondent PRAYER: Sub-Application has been filed under Section 151 of C.P.C to reopen the Contempt Petition No. 265 of 2026 which was closed on 25.02.2026. For Applicant: Mr. C.Umashankar For Respondent: Mr.A.Gopinath Standing Counsel