IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 24TH BHADRA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 1089 of 2010(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.14102/2010 Dated 30/04/2010 .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- THULASI, D/O.SARASAMMA, VILAYIL VEEDU, NAVAYIKULAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 603. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SMT.THARA THAMBAN SRI.B.BIPIN SMT.REVATHY P.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. JAYAN, AGED 37 YEARS, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, WORKING AS THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALLAMBALAM, TRIVANDRUM. 2. MADUSOODANAN PILLAI, S/O. GANGADHARAN PILLAI, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, RESIDING AT M.A.NIVAS, NAVAIKULAM PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 603. 3. ANU, S/O.MADUSOODANAN PILLAI, AGED NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, RESIDING AT M.A.NIVAS, NAVAIKULAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 603. 4. K.K.RAVEENDRAN NAIR, AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, RESIDING AT SREEKAMALAM (S.S.NIVAS) NAVAIKULAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 603. R1 BY G.P. SMT. MEERA ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA FOR R2 TO 4 SRI.M.S.KALESH FOR R2 TO 4 SRI.HARISH GOPINATH FOR R2 TO 4 SRI.V.VINAY MENON FOR R2 TO 4 SRI.M.AJAY (IRUMPANAM) FOR R2 TO 4 THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- Contempt of Court Case No. 1089 of 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Contempt case is filed stating that there is violation of the judgment by respondents 2 to 4. It is seen that WPC filed for police protection was disposed of by this Court recording the submission of respondents 2 to 4 in the Contempt Case that they do not intend to trespass into petitioner's property. Today, during hearing, counsel for respondents 2 to 4 produced photograph of the location which does not show any interference by respondents 2 to 4 and the petitioner's property remains in-tact. Petitioner's claim is based on civil court decree. If there is violation of the decree, civil court has authority to handle it. Contempt case is closed with the above observation. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (K. SURENDRA MOHAN) Judge. kk 2 kk