IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2011 / 29TH POUSHA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 1290 of 2010(S) ------------------------------- ( AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WA.1709/2009 Dated 15/03/2010 ) PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------- BIJAMMA THOMAS, AGED 40, W/O.BENZY JEROME, LECTURER IN MATHEMATICS SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY & APPLIED SCIENCES (STAS) MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, MAILASSERY P.O., PULLRIKUNNU CAMPUS, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.BABU VARGHESE, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.KAPPILLIL ANILKUMAR RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS: ------------------------------- 1. M.R.UNNI, AGED 51, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR REGISTRAR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. RAJAN GURUKKAL, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) VICE CHANCELLOR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. MR. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY . THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J. CHELAMESWAR, CJ & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (C )No. 1290 of 2010 IN W.A. No. 1709 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 19th January, 2011 J U D G M E N T J. Chelameswar, CJ. The Contempt of Court case is filed complaining that the final judgment in W.A.No. 1709 of 2009 dated 15th March, 2010 is not complied with. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 17th December, 2010, wherein it is stated that the proceedings were issued by the respondent University on 02.12.2010, under which necessary payments were made to the petitioner in compliance with the directions of this Court. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the compliance is a conditional compliance, in view of the fact that the respondents clearly indicated in the above mentioned proceedings that they propose to seek for a review of the final judgment referred to above and hence the Contempt Case is required to be examined. CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (C )No. 1290 of 2010 2 3. We do not see any reason to proceed with the Contempt Case as the proposal of the respondents to seek for a review of the judgment in W.A.No. 1709 of 2009, in our view, cannot be said to be constituting an act of contempt . Any party, if aggrieved by a decision of this Court, is entitled to seek for a review of the decision and depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, in a particular case, this Court may or may not entertain the review. But that does not mean that the party is debarred from filing a review merely because of the fact that a Contempt Case is pending. In the said circumstance, the Contempt of Court case is closed. J. CHELAMESWAR, CHIEF JUSTICE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk