IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2010 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 483 of 2010(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER Dated 19/06/2009 IN RP.325/2009 IN I.A.NO.2156/2007 IN RFA.302/2007 .................... PETITIONER(S): 2ND PETITIONER ----------------------------- N.UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 77 YEARS, S/O.NADUVILATHETHIL KUNHAN, NADUVILATHETHIL VEEDU, MUNDAMUKA AMSOM,MANJAKKAD, SHORANUR. BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI SRI.R.SREEHARI RESPONDENT(S): IST RESPONDENT ----------------------------- MANJU.D.K.D/O.K.A.DAMODHARAN, AGED 30 YEARS, KUNDIL HOUSE, PARUTHIPRA, MUNDAMUKA AMSOM, PARUTHIPARA DESOM,SHORANUR. BY ADV.SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATHA THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.CHELAMESWAR, C.J. & P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Cont. Case (C)No.483 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT Ravindran,J. Heard learned counsel on both sides. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent has not furnished security as directed by this Court in Annexure A2 order. Sri.Santheep Ankarath, learned counsel for the respondent submits that though beyond the time limit fixed by this Court, security was furnished by way of bond. The learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to controvert the said submission. In the light of the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent, we close this contempt case. It is clarified that in case the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent turns out to be incorrect, it will be open to the petitioner to take steps to have this contempt case re-opened by filing an appropriate application. J.CHELAMESWAR Chief Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge TKS