High Court Kerala High Court

Joseph vs Shri.K.P.Ouseph on 29 January, 2009

Kerala High Court
Joseph vs Shri.K.P.Ouseph on 29 January, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Con.Case(C).No. 119 of 2009(S)


1. JOSEPH, S/O.THOMAS CHANDY, THEVARKKAD
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SHRI.K.P.OUSEPH, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN

 Dated :29/01/2009

 O R D E R
       K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN JJ.
              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                         C.C.C. No. 119 OF 2009
              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                Dated this the 29th day of January, 2009

                                  JUDGMENT

BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J

This court by Annexure A3 judgment directed the 5th

respondent to pass final orders in the matter within three months

from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The petitioner

has not pleaded whether he has served a copy of the judgment on

the respondent and if so when ? But, learned counsel would submit

that the judgment was rendered in the presence of the learned

Government Pleader representing the respondent and further that

field inspection had already started.

2. Commencement of field inspection would show that the

respondent has started acting pursuant to the direction of this Court.

But, in the absence of any pleading regarding the receipt of the

judgment by the respondent, the Contempt Case is not maintainable.

3. Further the learned Government Pleader on instructions

submitted that the copy of the judgment was received by the

respondent only on 06.11.08. Therefore, the time limit fixed by this

CCC No. 119/09
-:2:-

Court will expire only on 05.02.09.

In view of this submission, we think that the Contempt Case is

not maintainable. Accordingly, it is closed without prejudice to the

contention of the petitioner and his right to approach this Court, if any

cause of action arises in future.

K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE

K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE

ttb