K P Ramachandran v. Mohammed Sabir
Case brief
What is this about?
This is a contempt case where the petitioner alleged non-compliance with a prior direction regarding an application. The respondent explained delay due to a third party possessing the property. The court closed the case with liberty to revive if compliance fails within a reasonable time.
What did the court decide?
Contempt case closed; liberty granted to petitioner to move for revival if direction not complied with within reasonable time.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/8TH ASHADHA, 1938 Con.Case(C).No. 794 of 2016 (S) IN WP(C).23251/2015 -----------------------------------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER IN WP(C) 23251/2015 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 10.08.2015
PETITIONER(S):
K P RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 69 YEARS S/O. K.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR SREEDHANYAA THIRUMARADY PO PIN - 686 662
BY ADVS.SRI.T.O.XAVIER SMT.V.SETHUKUTTY AMMA
RESPONDENT(S):
MOHAMMED SABIR, AGED 51 YEARS S/0 ABDULLAKUTTY ADDL. THAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA 686 669 ERNAKULAM DISTRICT
R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. C.K. SHERIN
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the contempt case should be closed and liberty granted to the petitioner to revive it if directions are not complied with
How to handle delay in compliance due to a third party being in possession
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
K P Ramachandran
- respondent
Mohammed Sabir
Coram
K. Vinod Chandran
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court