Disposed

M.K.Chellappan v. P.N.Prasad

Kerala HC20 Jan 2020Con.Case(C)/50/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court closed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with a prior judgment regarding encroachment. The court deemed the matter closed after recording the respondent's undertaking to complete action within a month while preserving the petitioner's liberty to approach again.

What did the court decide?

Petition closed with liberty to approach the court again if undertaking is not complied with.

M.K.Chellappan Vs P.N.Prasad — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 30TH POUSHA, 1941

¶5

Con.Case(C).No.50 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 26093/2019

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 26093/2019(J) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶7

PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶8

M.K.CHELLAPPAN AGED 67 YEARS S/O. KRISHNAN, MANGANALIL HOUSE, VEMBILLI P.O, PIN 683565

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.SADCHITH.P.KURUP SRI.C.P.ANIL RAJ

¶10

RESPONDENT/6TH RESPONDENT:

¶11

P.N.PRASAD

¶12

AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER NOW WORKING AS SECRETARY, KUNNATHUNADU GRAMA PANCHAYAT PANCHAYAT OFFICE, KUNNATHUNADU ERNAKULAM PIN 683565

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

SRI.G.G.MANOJ-SC

¶15

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Con.Case(C).No.50 OF 2020

¶17

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

The petitioner has approached this Court through this Contempt of Court case alleging that the respondent has not complied with the directions in the judgment dated 25.10.2019, even though it had been directed therein to hear him and the 7^th respondent in the writ petition and to take a final decision as to the action required against the constructions put up by the latter, adverting to various documents that have already been produced on record.

¶20

The petitioner says that even though two weeks time had been granted to the respondent to do so, no action has yet been taken by him, apart from issuing Annexure A2 proceedings. The petitioner, therefore, prays that the respondent be proceeded against under the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act.

¶21

Sri.G.G.Manoj, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, submits that Annexure A2 is not the final proceedings, but only a communication to the Tahsildar to measure the property in question, so as to verify the actual

¶22

Con.Case(C).No.50 OF 2020

¶23

¶24

extent that has been encroached upon by the 7^th respondent in the writ petition. He says that the Tahsildar has now furnished a report before the respondent and that he intends to hear both sides through a fresh notice to be issued today. He says that it has been shown in the report of the Tahsildar that 0.12 Ares of land had been encroached into by the 7^th respondent in the writ petition and that all necessary action with respect to this will be completed within a period of one month from today.

¶25

Taking note of the afore submissions and since the proceedings with respect to the alleged encroachment of the 7^th respondent in the writ petition certainly required the necessary input to be obtained from the Tahsildar, I deem it appropriate to close this Contempt Case; however, recording the submissions of Sri.G.G.Manoj as afore, and leaving liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court again, if the afore undertaking by the respondent are also not complied with in its letter and spirit.

¶26

This contempt of court case is thus closed.

¶27

SD/-

¶28

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

¶31

Con.Case(C).No.50 OF 2020

¶32

¶33

APPENDIX

¶34

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶35

ANNEXURE A1 JUDGMENT DATD 3-10-2019 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO. 20911/2019 ANNEXURE A2 COPY OF LETTER DATED 15-11-2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

M.K.Chellappan v. P.N.Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.K.Chellappan v. P.N.Prasad

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

P.M.Joy Vs P.v.Johny

Bincy Jose, Vs Muhammad Sabir

Jayaprakash Vs Thankamma

K. John Vs John Joseph

Kavitha K Karunakaran Vs Girijakumari Ayyappan

K.N.Prasad, Vs P.R.Gigi