Disposed

Sinilkumar.E.K v. K.G.Radhakrishnan

Kerala HC9 Oct 2019Con.Case(C)/1468/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt case alleging non-compliance of production directions, the Court held that pending interim status quo orders in a related civil suit prevent further action by authorities. The petitioner was directed to seek remedies in the civil court first.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to seek remedies in the civil court; contempt case disposed keeping liberty to approach civil court later.

Sinilkumar.E.K Vs K.G.Radhakrishnan — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 17TH ASWINA, 1941

¶5

Con.Case(C).No.1468 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 38223/2018

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 38223/2018(C) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

SINILKUMAR.E.K AGED 43 YEARS S/O KUNJAPPAN, KANNIKKATTU, CMC NO 15, MARUTHORVATTOM P.O.CHERTHALA.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.B.PRAMOD

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

K.G.RADHAKRISHNAN

¶12

(AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER ), THAHSILDAR (LAND RECORDS), CHERTHALA-688 524.

¶13

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, SR.GOVT.PLEADER

¶16

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Con. Case (Civil) No. 1468 of 2019

¶18

¶19

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶20

============================ Con. Case (Civil) No. 1468 of 2019 ============================

¶21

Dated this the 9^th day of October, 2019

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

The above said Contempt of Court Case has been filed alleging non compliance of directions issued by this court in Annexure A1 judgment dated 15.01.2019 in WPC No. 38223/2018. This Court, while passing directions in Annexure A1 Judgment had specifically observed that the process as directed therein, should be completed within 3 months and thereafter, it is for the competent authority concerned to take necessary actions in accordance with law and the contention of contesting respondents 6 to 8 therein, that in view of the pendency of the civil suit and the interim orders therein, no proceedings under the KLC Act could be taken, etc. should be duly considered by the authorities concerned etc,.

¶24

The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that the process of identifying the alleged encroachment has been completed and it is found that encroached piece of land is part and parcel of land appurtenant to the building and that in view of the interim orders passed by the Munsiff's Court, Cherthala in O. S. No. 439/2018, filed by respondents 6 to 8, in the W.P.(C). any act of demolishing the building will have the inevitable effect of disturbing the interim status quo order granted by that court and without

¶25

Con. Case (Civil) No. 1468 of 2019

¶26

¶27

effective orders of the civil court vacating the said status quo order, it will not be legally correct for the respondent Officer concerned to unilaterally proceed any further in the matter, and more so in view of the specific observations and decisions made by this Court on page 11 of the judgment in the W.P.(C).

¶28

To a specific query as to whether the interim status quo order granted by the Civil Court is pending, the counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that the interim order is pending and that the petitioner herein has been advised to approach said civil court and to get himself impleaded and to seek further orders in the matter.

¶29

Since that is the position, the learned Senior Government Pleader is right in submitting that, it may not be legally right and proper for the respondent authorities concerned to proceed any further in the matter in view of the pending interim orders granted by the civil court. Hence, it is for the petitioner to work out his remedies before the civil court and if such hurdles are cleared and still the petitioner has a stand that the respondent officers herein have not fully implemented Annexure A1 judgment, it is for the petitioner then to work out his remedies in the manner known to law.

¶30

With the said liberty, the above Contempt of Court Case will

¶31

stand disposed.

¶32

(Sd/-) ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶33

¶34

Con. Case (Civil) No. 1468 of 2019

¶35

¶36

APPENDIX

¶37

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶38

ANNEXURE 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.1.2019 IN WPC NO 38223/2018 ANNEXURE 11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 13.3.2019 ANNEXURE 111 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH ANNEXURE IV TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11.4.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶39

- - True Copy - - -

¶40

PA to Judge

Sinilkumar.E.K v. K.G.Radhakrishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sinilkumar.E.K v. K.G.Radhakrishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.v.Abdul Siyad Vs C.P.Muhsina Sulhath

Gregory Simon T., Vs Shine P.Jacob

Eldhose Alias Vs Station House Officer

Adam Chenangadath Vs State of Kerala

Selvaraj Vs State of Kerala

Kurian Abraham, Vs Smt. Anu R.S