Sreekanth vs Vrindadevi N.R
2021 Latest Caselaw 15758 Ker

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
     FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 8TH SRAVANA, 1943
                 CON.CASE(C) NO. 690 OF 2017
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WPC 11935/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF
                        KERALA, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/PETITIONER

          SREEKANTH
          AGED 43 YEARS
          S/O SUDHAN,KAITHAVALAPPIL HOUSE,
          NAYARAMBALAM P.O.-682509,KOCHI TALUK,
          ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

          BY ADV SMT.SADHANA KUMARI ESWARI



CONTEMPTNOR/RESPONDENT:

          VRINDADEVI N.R
          AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER
          THR TAHASILDAR, KOCHI TALUK.


          SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER




     THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 30.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
 CON.CASE(C) NO. 690 OF 2017
                                        -2-



                                   JUDGMENT

This contempt petition is filed by the

petitioner complaining that the directives

contained in the judgment dated 01.12.2016 in W.P.C

No.11935/2015 are not complied with.

2. Annexure D order issued by the Additional

Tahsildar dated 13.03.2017 shows that, a decision

was taken by the Additional Tahsildar basically

stating that, on production of appropriate

documents and hearing all parties, a decision would

be taken. Anyhow, the directions contained in the

judgment was to the effect that the Tahsildar shall

take a decision within a time frame fixed by this

Court.

3. Whatever that be, today when the matter

was taken up, learned counsel appearing for the

contempt petitioner Smt.Sadhanakumari Eswari

submitted that, a suit was pending by and between

the parties and at present A.S.No.117/2020 is CON.CASE(C) NO. 690 OF 2017

pending before the IInd Additional District Court,

Ernakulam, and in that proceedings the judgment and

a decree of the court below is stayed.

Taking into account the said aspect, the

subject matter of the suit is said to be one and

the same. I do not find any reason to proceed with

the contempt petition any further, since the rights

as is claimed by the parties are yet to be

crystallized in a properly constituted civil

proceedings. Therefore, the contempt petition is

closed accordingly.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE hmh CON.CASE(C) NO. 690 OF 2017

APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 690/2017

PETITIONER ANNEXURE

ANNEXURE A THE TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.C NO. 11935/2020 DATED 01.12.2016.

ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR

ANNEXURE C THE TRUE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM

ANNEXURE D TRUE ORDER PASSED BY THE CONTEMNOR

RESPONDENT ANNEXURE : NIL