Chacko E.C. @ Chakkappan v. N.Viswambaran, Tahsildar, Kunnathunadu

Kerala HC17 Jul 2012Con.Case(C)/1062/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt petition arising from a boundary dispute proceeding, the court accepted the respondent Tahsildar's view that the matter was civil and not wilful disobedience, thus closing the contempt proceedings without assuming jurisdiction over the underlying dispute.

What did the court decide?

Contempt proceedings closed with a finding that there was no wilful disobedience.

Chacko E.C. @ Chakkappan Vs N.Viswambaran, Tahsildar, Kunnathunadu — Kerala HC (2012) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2012/26TH ASHADHA 1934

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 1062 of 2012 (S)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WPC.33100/2011 DATED 23-12-2011.

¶7

PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶8

CHACKO E.C. @ CHAKKAPPAN, S/O.CHERIYA, AGED 59 YEARS, MELETHVEEDU, PINARMUNDA, KUNNATHUNAD VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.C.A.CHACKO, SMT.C.M.CHARISMA.

¶10

RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT:

¶11

N. VISWAMBARAN,

¶12

AGED AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, KUNNATHUNAD -683 542.

¶13

BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.SUNITHA VINOD.

¶14

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

rs.

¶16

Con.Case(C).No. 1062 of 2012 (S)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-

¶19

ANNEXURE A1 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23/12/2011 IN W.P.(C)NO. 33100/2011 (J) OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. ANNEXURE A2 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 23/01/2012 OF ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHUNAD.

¶20

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ Cont.Court (C) NO. 1062 OF 2012

¶25

======================

¶26

Dated this the 17^th day of July, 2012

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

Petitioner had approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 33100/11. That writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 23^rd of December, 2011 directing that the respondents herein will conclude the proceedings initiated pursuant to Ext.P5, with notice to the parties concerned.

¶29

The controversy essentially is in respect of fixing of boundary on the basis of a settlement deed relied on by the petitioner. However, it appears that even prior to the judgment, when application was made by the petitioner, 3^rd respondent had issued notice to him and his rival and the parties appeared before him on 2/9/11. During the course of the hearing, it was revealed that while one wanted boundary to be fixed based on resurvey records, other did not agree to such a course. It was on account of that, respondents have now issued Annexure A2 stating that the dispute between the petitioner and his rival is essentially a civil dispute and that the matter has to be resolved in a civil court. It is contending that Annexure A2 is not in compliance with

¶30

COC.No.1062/12

¶31

:2 :

¶32

the judgment of this Court and therefore amounts to contempt as defined under the Contempt of Courts Act, this petition has been filed.

¶33

Although the hearing held on 2/9/11 was prior to the judgment dated 23^rd of December, 2011, still having regard to the nature of the controversy as reflected in Annexure A2, I am of the view that the respondents were right in saying that the dispute is a civil dispute and that the matter needs to be resolved in a civil Court.

¶34

In that view, I do not find that this is a matter of wilful disobedience of the directions of this Court justifying proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act.

¶35

Therefore, the contempt is closed.

¶36

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶37

Chacko E.C. @ Chakkappan v. N.Viswambaran, Tahsildar, Kunnathunadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chacko E.C. @ Chakkappan v. N.Viswambaran, Tahsildar, Kunnathunadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rasheed Vs Sheik Pareeth

Indira Pushpan Vs Excise Commissioner

K.P.Radhakrishnan Vs Deputy Collector (La) Thiruvananthapuram

Joby Thomas Vs G.Sreekumaran Nair

Akbar Vs Deputy Director

Rani Joji Vs Registrar of Births and Deaths