Mathew Z Pulikunnel vs Sophy Thomas
2022 Latest Caselaw 4335 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
                                  &
          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
     THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2022/17TH CHAITHRA, 1944
                      CON.CASE(C).NO.118 OF 2022
               AGAINST THE ORDER IN WP(C).NO.1737/2012
                        OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER:

          MATHEW Z PULIKUNNEL
          AGED 70 YEARS
          S/O.LATE MR.ZACHARIAH PULIKUNNEL, 26 STRATHCONA DRIVE,
          BELLEVILLE, ORTARIO, K8N4H9, CANADA, REPRESENTED BY
          THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR.THARUN THOMAS,
          AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.MR.P.J.THOMAS, CHALASSERY,
          PULIKKUTTISSERY P.O., KOTTAYAM.

          BY ADV.SRI.YESHWANTH SHENOY


RESPONDENTS:

    1     SMT.SOPHY THOMAS
          (AGED AND NAME OF FATHER/HUSBAND NOT KNOWN TO THE
          PETITIONER)
          REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
          ERNAKULAM-682 031.

    2     SMT.N.ANITHA
          (AGED AND NAME OF FATHER/HUSBAND NOT KNOWN TO THE
          PETITIONER)
          REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL), HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
          ERNAKULAM-682 031.

          BY ADV.SRI.B.G.HARINDRANATH

          THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP
    FOR ADMISSION ON 07.04.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
    DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CON. CASE (C).NO.118 OF 2022     :: 2 ::




                               JUDGMENT

A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

Pursuant to our order dated 7.3.2022, the 2 nd respondent

filed an affidavit dated 1.4.2022 giving her explanation as regards

the delay that was occassioned in putting up the file relating to the

writ petition before the jurisdictional court concerned. On a

perusal of the said affidavit, we were not satisfied with the

explanation given for the delay occasioned during the period from

14.6.2021 to 9.7.2021. We also found that there was no satisfactory

explanation for the repeated noting of defects by the Registry.

Taking note of the views expressed by us at the time of hearing on

5.4.2022, the learned counsel appearing for the 2 nd respondent

undertook to file another affidavit in the matter.

2. In the second affidavit that is filed before us today, the 2 nd

respondent tenders an unconditional and unqualified apology

before this Court for the laxity in not implementing the directions

contained in the decision in Ayub Khan P.A. v. State of Kerala

and Another - [2012 (1) KHC 615]. She has further submitted CON. CASE (C).NO.118 OF 2022 :: 3 ::

that instructions would be issued to the Registry forthwith to the

effect that all the defects which come to the notice of the Registry

shall be pointed out at first instance itself to facilitate curing of

defects with all possible expedition. By way of clarification, it is

further stated that instructions would be issued to the Registry not

to raise fresh defects periodically, after the earlier defects have

been cured or answered.

3. Taking note of the subsequent affidavit filed before us

today, and finding that there has been an expression of remorse at

the treatment meted out to counsel for the petitioner and that there

is an assurance given that in future, the Registry would not note

defects in a phased manner and that the directions already issued

by a Division Bench of this Court in Ayub Khan [supra] will be

adhered to in letter and spirit, we deem it appropriate to close this

Contempt of Court Case, recording the contents of the affidavits

aforementioned.

4. Before parting with this case, we might remind the

Registry of this Court that the filing of a case by a litigant before

this institution is a manifestation of the confidence reposed by the

litigant in the justice delivery system in our country. The right of CON. CASE (C).NO.118 OF 2022 :: 4 ::

access to justice is fundamental to the citizenry and is today

recognised as an integral facet of the right to life guaranteed under

Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The significance of this right

lies in the fact that it is essentially one that is designed to

effectuate the rule of law which is a basic feature of our

Constitution and a guiding principle that informs the justice

delivery system in our country. As an institution of governance

under our Constitution, it becomes incumbent on the part of the

Judiciary to ensure that the cause of a litigant is brought before the

adjudicating authority with due expedition always remembering

that a delay in processing of applications is detrimental to the cause

of justice. We trust that the Registry will keep in mind these

observations while dealing with the files presented before it in

future.

The Contempt of Court Case is closed.

Sd/-

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

Sd/-

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

                                                    JUDGE
prp/6/4/22
    CON. CASE (C).NO.118 OF 2022          :: 5 ::




                    APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C).NO.118/2022

PETITIONER ANNEXURES:

Annexure A1                  CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN AYUB KHAN
                             P.A. V. STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER
                             REPORTED IN 2012 (1) KHC 615

Annexure A2                  COPY OF THE E-MAIL DATED 2 JULY 2021 FROM

THE PETITIONER'S COUNSEL TO THE RESPONDENTS

Annexure A3 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 5 JULY 2021 FROM THE PETITIONER'S COUNSEL TO THE RESPONDENTS

Annexure A4 COPY OF THE E-MAIL DATED 6 JULY 2021 FROM THE PETITIONER'S COUNSEL TO THE RESPONDENTS

Annexure A5 THE COPY OF THE DEFECT S SHEET IN W.P.WITH FILING NUMBER 9031706 OF 2021

Annexure A6 THE COPY OF THE DEFECTS SHEET IN W.P. WITH FILING NUMBER 9031715 OF 2021

Annexure A7 COPY OF THE CAUSE LIST DATED 9 JULY 2021 FOR THE COURT PRESIDED BY JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR.

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:             NIL.



                             //TRUE COPY//



                             P.S. TO JUDGE