This contempt petition alleged forcible eviction violating a status quo order. The court rejected the petitioner's reliance on an FIR as unproven evidence of disobedience. The petition was dismissed due to lack of proof.
The contempt petition was dismissed as the petitioner failed to prove the alleged disobedience.
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 K.HARILAL
TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/1ST AGRAHAYANA, 1938
Con.Case(C).No. 1268 of 2016 (S) IN OP(C).1222/2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP(C) 1222/2016 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 27-06-2016
PETITIONER(S)//RESPONDENT :
E.T.SURESH S/O THANKAPPAN, AGED 54 YEARS, ELLIKKAL HOUSE, THANISSERY DESOM, MANAVALASERY, MUKUNDAPURAM, THRISSUR, CANTEEN PROPRIETOR, HOLYCROSS HOSPITAL, KOTTIYAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT
BY ADV. SMT.P.R.REENA
RESPONDENT(S)//PETITIONER:
SR.FIDAS THOTTAN D/O T.K.VARGHESE, AGED 64 YEARS, ADMINISTRATOR, HOLY CROSS HOSPITAL, KOTTIYAM, ADICHANALLOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT- 691 571
R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) R1 BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH SEBASTIAN (KOLLAM) R1 BY ADV. SRI.LIJU. M.P
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
COC.1268/2016
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE-1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.6.2016 IN OPC.1222/2016. ANNEXURE-2 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE CLOSE DOWN CANTEEN
ANNEXURE-3 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1909/2016 OF KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION
// True Copy //
PA to Judge
K. HARILAL, J.
Contempt Case (C) No.1268 of 2016 `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2016
J U D G M E N T
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
In this Contempt of Court Case, it is the specific
case of the petitioner that in disobedience to Annexure-1 judgment, the petitioner was forcibly evicted from the canteen by the respondent during the period of status quo ordered by this Court. Per contra , in the counter statement, the respondent contended that the petitioner's wife voluntarily offered to surrender the possession on 18.07.2016. Since the respondent was not immediately available, she was given a sheltering in the hospital nurses' room for the time being and that too was only after the request made by her. There was no compulsion, force or threats to surrender the vacant possession of the canteen building. Thus, the surrender was peaceful, voluntary and smooth and they bona fide believed that the voluntary
COC.1268/2016
: 2 :
surrender might have been done with a malicious intention to prosecute the respondent under a contempt of court case before this Court.
COC.1268/2016
: 3 :
thereunder. After investigation, the police has right and power to refer the matter as mistake of fact. If that be so, Annexure-3 FIR cannot be taken as a substantive evidence to substantiate the alleged act of contempt. No other document was produced to substantiate the alleged disobedience against the respondent. Thus, the petitioner failed to prove the alleged disobedience which amounted the act of contempt. Besides, it is true that even though status quo for a period of three weeks was granted in court, 45 days time was granted in the order as against three weeks considering the delay in issuing the order, as submitted by the respondent in the counter affidavit filed in
this contempt case. Consequently, this Contempt of Court Case will stand dismissed.
Sd/- (K. HARILAL, JUDGE)
aks/22/11
// True Copy // PA to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner proved disobedience to the court order amounting to contempt.
Whether the registration of an FIR establishes the truth of the alleged allegations.
E.T. Suresh
Sr. Fidas Thottan
K. Harilal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
