Sukhendu S vs Ampadi C.V
2021 Latest Caselaw 22438 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                      PRESENT
             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
    TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1943
                        CON.CASE(C) NO. 1835 OF 2021
  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 8028/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF
                              KERALA, ERNAKULAM


PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

    1        SUKHENDU S.,
             AGED 57 YEARS,
             S/O. N. SWAMINATHAN,
             RESIDING AT SNV BUNGALOW,
             PUTHENCHANTHA, VARKALA,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 141

    2        SOORAJ S,
             AGED 52 YEARS
             S/O. N. SWAMINATHAN,
             RESIDING AT SNV BUNGALOW,
             PUTHENCHANTHA, VARKALA,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 141

             BY ADVS.
             KALEESWARAM RAJ
             VARUN C.VIJAY
             THULASI K. RAJ



RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

             AMPADI C.V.,
             TAHSILDAR (LR), TALUK OFFICE, VARKALA TALUK COURT ROAD,
             VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695141

             SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SENIOR GP


     THIS    CONTEMPT    OF   COURT    CASE     (CIVIL)   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 09.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 CON.CASE(C) NO.1835/2021
                                       2

                  P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
            -------------------------------
               Con.Case(C)No.1835 of 2021
           --------------------------------
      Dated this the 09th day of November 2021

                                JUDGMENT

This Court as per Annexure A1 judgment directed

the 8th respondent to consider Ext.P4

representation. The 8th respondent passed Annexure

A3 order. According to the petitioners, the order

passed is not as directed by this Court in the

above judgment.

2. I perused Annexure A1 judgment. The

direction is only to consider Ext.P4 representation

and pass appropriate orders. I think there is no

contempt in this case. If the petitioners are

aggrieved by Annexure A3 order, the petitioners are

free to challenge the same in accordance to law.

With the above observation, this Contempt

Case(C) is closed.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

DM CON.CASE(C) NO.1835/2021

APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 1835/2021

PETITIONER ANNEXURE

ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.04.2021 IN W.P.C NO. 8028/2021.

ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE DATED 14.08.2021.

ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.

LRM5/4169/2021 DATED 09.08.2021 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR (LAND RECORDS).

ANNEXURE IV TRUE COPY OF REQUEST DATED 01.09.2021 PLACED BEFORE THE DISTRICT SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT.

ANNEXURE V TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. FILE NO.

DCTVM/2127/2020-J1 DATED 06.10.2021 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT.

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE