This is a short order closing a civil contempt of court case. The respondent disputed that no order had been issued, to which the court accepted the fact, closed the case, but left the petitioners liberty to challenge the order via terms of law.
Contempt of Court Case closed; liberty granted to petitioners to challenge the order now issued.
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 DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1940
Con.Case(C).No.356 of 2019 IN WP(C) NO.25331/2018
AGAINST WP(C) NO.25331/2018 of HIGHCOURT OF KERALA
PETITIONERS:
1 IBRAHIM, AGED 60 YEARS S/O.HASSANARUPILLAI, V.K.HOUSE, MARAYKKAMAMOODU, PURAYIDOM, IYKKAMOM, PARASALA P.O., NEYYATTINKARA.
2 UMMAIBABEEVI, AGED 50 YEARS W/O.IBRAHIM, V.K.HOUSE, MARAYKKAMAMOODU, PURAYIDOM, IYKKAMOM, PARASALA P.O., NEYYATTINKARA.
BY ADVS. SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR SMT.A.SALINI LAL
RESPONDENT:
DR.K.VASUKI, (AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) W/O.KARTHIKEYAN SELLAPPAN, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KUDAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695043. SMT. AMMINIKUTTY-SR.GP
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Con.Case(C).356/19 IN WP(C).25331/18
2
JUDGMENT
This Contempt of Court Case has been
filed alleging that the respondent has not issued an order as directed in the judgment of this Court in W.P(C)No.25331 of 2018.
Smt. Amminikutty, however, submitted that an order, dated 16/02/2019, has already been issued and that a copy of the same has been handed over to Shri.R.Sunil Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, and prays that this Contempt of Court Case be, therefore, closed.
counsel for the petitioners affirms that an order has been issued by the respondent, but
alleges that the said order has not been issued in terms of law.
Con.Case(C).356/19 IN WP(C).25331/18
this Contempt of Court Case but the petitioners certainly will have full liberty to challenge the said order, if they are so desirous.
In the afore circumstances, I close this Contempt of Court Case; leaving liberty to the petitioners to challenge the order now issued by the respondent, if they are so advised, in terms of law.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
MC/26.2.19
4
Con.Case(C).356/19 IN WP(C).25331/18
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 27.07.2018 OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN W.P.(C)NO.25331/2018. ANNEXURE 2 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17.08.2019. ANNEXURE 3 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13.09.2018 OF TALUK SURVEYOR. RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
NIL
MC (TRUE COPY) PA TO JUDGE
IBRAHIM
UMMAIBABEEVI
DR.K.VASUKI
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
