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 TUESDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2011 / 14TH POUSHA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 1140 of 2010(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WA.2608/2009 Dated 02/03/2010 .................... PETITIONER: -------------- P.C.KUTTAN, AGED 74 YEARS, S/O.SANKU, F4-15, SATELLITE TOWNSHIP, KAKKANAD WEST P.O., KOCHIN-682 030. BY ADV. P.C.KUTTAN(PARTY IN PERSON) RESPONDENT: --------------- SMT.SREEKALA, (AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) SUB REGISTRAR, THRIKKAKARA, KOCHI-682 030. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT. K. MEERA. THIS CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Contempt Case (Civil) No. 1140 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, C.J. The present contempt case is filed complaining that a final judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.15099 of 2009 dated 20.08.09 as confirmed by judgment in W.A. No.2608 of 2009 dated 02.03.10, has been wilfully disobeyed. 2. This contempt case, in our opinion, is to be dismissed on the sole ground that the sole respondent herein was not a party respondent to the abovementioned writ petition or writ appeal. However, we deem it appropriate to mention a few facts before dismissing the contempt case. 3. The petitioner herein purchased a house from the Kerala State Housing Board, a statutory body. For various reasons which are not relevant at this juncture, the Housing Board did not execute the necessary sale deed in favour of the appellant herein. Therefore, the appellant approached this Court by way of the abovementioned writ petition ( W.P.(C) CCC No. 1140 of 2010 -:2:- No.15099 of 2009), this Court by judgment dated 20.08.2009 disposed of the writ petition. The operative portion of the judgment reads as follows: “11. In these circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to execute the sale deed in relation to plot F4-15of the Thrikkakara housing accommodation scheme and present if for registration before the Sub Registrar in the presence of the petitioner on any day suitable to them within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall be present before the Sub Registrar when asked to do so in that regard. But it is made clear that the Housing Board is entitled to assert it is a claim for the amount of Rs.8,200/- referred to Ext.P6, while defending RFA No.15/2009. Further the claim for amount of Rs.8,200/- will constitute a charge over the property which is to be assigned in favour of the petitioner, and shall remain so till the disposal of RFA 15/09. Thereafter it shall abide by the order that this Court may pass in RFA 15/2009. The Sub Registrar shall after registration of the document, hand over the original title deed to the petitioner in accordance with law.” 4. Not satisfied by the judgment, the petitioner herein preferred W.A. No.2608 of 2009. The appeal was disposed of with certain modifications to the judgment under appeal, the details of which may not be necessary for us. The facts remains CCC No. 1140 of 2010 -:3:- that pursuant to the abovementioned judgment, the Housing Board did in fact execute the sale deed. 5. Thereupon, the petitioner herein presented the document for registration before the sole respondent herein. Complaining that the respondent is not registering the said document, the instant contempt case is filed. 6. Having regard to the chequered history of this case, we thought it appropriate to call upon the Government Pleader to file a memo on behalf of the sole respondent explaining the stand of the respondent for not registering the document. The respondent in fact filed a memo and also Annexure 7 containing the reasons for which the respondent declined to register the sale deed. 7. Whether the reasons given by the respondent are legally sustainable or not, in our opinion, is a matter not to be examined in the present contempt case for more than one reason. Firstly, the respondent was not a party to the abovementioned writ petition. Secondly, the decision of the respondent contains an entirely different cause of action than the CCC No. 1140 of 2010 -:4:- cause of action upon which the writ petition was filed. For the abovementioned reason, we do not see any need to proceed further with the contempt case and the Contempt Case is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail such remedy as is available under law to the petitioner, if he is in any way aggrieved by the rejection of the registration on the basis of the objections pointed out in Annexure 7 of the memo filed by the respondent. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb CCC No. 1140 of 2010 -:5:-