The court dismissed a review petition in a contempt case. It held that while the respondent technically failed to measure property due to lack of documents, there was no deliberate violation. The remedy lies in filing a suit.
Review petition dismissed; no indication of how the original judgment is to be treated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN
TUESDAY, THE 13TH DECEMBER 2011 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA 1933
RP.No. 882 of 2011(S)
------------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN COC.829/2011 DATED 10.10.2011
REVIEW PETITIONER(S):
-----------------------------------
P.K.MURALEEDHARAN KARTHA, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.SAVITHRI KUNJAMMA, PUTHUPPARAMBATH MADATHIL KANAKKU, ERAMALLOOR DESOM, EZHUPUNNA VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.M.A.SHIHAB
RESPONDENT(S):
-------------------------
1. C.THAMPI PAUL, TALUK SUERVEYOR, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
R1 BY ADV.SRI.S.JAMAL
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
DG
RP.No. 882 of 2011(S)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1:THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN COC NO.829/2011 OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO-12622/2010 DTD 29/7/2010 ANNEXURE A2:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE REVENUE DIVISION OFFICER FORT COCHIN DTD 10/5/2010 ANNEXURE A3:THE TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN THE OS NO.944 OF 2009 BEFORE THE SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS - NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
DG
S.SIRI JAGAN.J
IN
CON.CASE(C) NO.829 OF 2011
ORDER
This review petition is filed by the petitioner in the contempt case seeking review of my judgment dated 10/10/2011, whereby I closed the contempt case accepting the stand of the respondent that by passing Annexure R1 order, my judgment has been complied with. The contention of the petitioner is that the direction in the judgment is to comply with Annexure A2 order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Cochin directing measurement of the property and fixing boundaries after ascertaining the location of the property. Petitioner points out that in Annexure R1 order produced by the respondent what has been stated is that for want of document, the property could not be surveyed and the boundaries fixed. Petitioner's contention is that on the date when the contempt case was taken up for hearing the Advocate could not reach the Court and that is why he could not present the case before this court. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, submits that Annexure R1 order is self explanatory and therefore, the respondent was unable to do anything in the matter in the absence of any title deed for measuring the property and fixing the boundaries since as per the documents produced by the petitioner, the boundaries
2
could not be ascertained. He also submits that no review petition would lie in contempt cases since a division bench of this court has in Antony Vs P.S. Rana, 2005 (2)KLT 120 held that once the contemnor is discharged, he cannot again be tried by seeking to exercise powers of this Court. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
Of course, technically it may be stated that the respondent has not complied with the directions in my judgment, in so far as what the respondent was required to do is to measure the properties and to fix the boundaries. In Annexure R1 order what is stated is that he is unable to fix the boundaries for want of appropriate details. But still I am of opinion that there is no deliberate violation or non-compliance with my directions, which alone would constitute contempt of court. In the peculiar circumstances of cases the remedy of the petitioner lies in filing a suit to get the properties measured and the boundaries fixed appropriately. Therefore, without prejudice to that right, this review petition is dismissed.
S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
STU
3
4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a review petition lies in a contempt case.
Whether there was deliberate violation or non-compliance with the court's directions to constitute contempt.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Antony Vs P.S. Rana, 2005 (2)KLT 120Referred¶34
P.K. MURALEEDHARAN KARTHA
C. THAMPI PAUL
S. SIRI JAGAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
