IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 30TH MAGHA 1929 Cont.Case(C).No.1739 of 2007(S) ------------------------------------------------------------------ ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.8621/2007 DATED 29/03/2007 .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER:- --------------------------------------- MOHAMMED PATHUMMAL BEEMAKANNU, AGED 40 YEARS, D/O.PATHUMMAL, RESIDING AT PARAIKKAL VILAKATHU VEEDU, KOTUKAL VILLAGE, VIZHINJAM, NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV. SRI.B.SATHIQ SRI.C.ANIRUDHAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 3 & 4:- -------------------------------------------------------- 1. SURESH KUMAR, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION, VIZHINJAM, NEYYATTINKARA. 2. K.SASIKUMAR, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, ASST.COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, FORT POLICE STATION, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA. THIS CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- H.L.Dattu,C.J. & K.M.Joseph,J. ---------------------------------------------- Cont. Case (C).No.1739 of 2007-S ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 19th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu,C.J. Petitioner before us is the decree holder in O.S.No.458 of 1984 dated 31.01.1995. By the said judgment, the trial Court had issued certain directions and declaration. They are as under: “1. The title and possession of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property as noted in Ext.C5(a) is hereby declared. 2. The defendants are perpetually injuncted from installing gate on the gap left in A5, A4 & A3 line in Ext.C5(a). 3. The defendants are hereby directed to close the aforesaid gap in A5, A4 & A3 line in Ext.C5(a) by an order of mandatory injunction within a period of 30 days from the date of the decree. 4. In case, the defendants fail to comply with the above direction, the plaintiff is allowed to get it closed through court at her own expense. 5. No order as to costs. 6. Ext.C5(a) will be appended to the decree”. 2. Since the decree holder/complainant could not execute the decree granted by the trial Court, the decree holder was before this Court in W.P.(C).No.8621 of 2007, inter alia, seeking police protection to assist the complainant to implement the decree passed by the trial Court. This Court by its order dated 29.03.2007 was pleased to pass the following order. It reads as under: “This is a petition for police protection. We have already directed the police by way of Interim Order dated 14.3.2007, to see that law and order is maintained. Police Cont.Case (C)No.1739/2007-S - 2 - should also see that subsisting civil court orders are not violated. By Ext.P7, in execution of the decree, Munsiff Court also directed the police to render necessary police aid including woman police to the Advocate Commissioner for executing the order of the court. We therefore direct that the above order is strictly followed and effective protection is given”. 3. Alleging that the police authorities have not obeyed the orders and directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C).No.8621 of 2007 dated 29.03.2007, the complainant is before us in this contempt petition with a specific request to initiate appropriate contempt proceedings against the respondents and punish them for their so-called wilful and deliberate disobedience of the orders of this Court. 4. After entertaining this contempt petition, we had issued notice to the respondents. The respondents have entered their appearance through Smt.K.Meera, learned Senior Government Pleader. The 2nd respondent has filed his statement dated 19.2.2008. At paragraph 4 of the said statement, it is stated as under: “4. Meanwhile on 03.05.07, i.e., after 4 days of the execution of the decree, Smt.Beemakannu has again approached the Police Station stating that another part of her compound wall has been demolished by one Navas, Biyathukannu, Shani, Saidath and other identifiable 5 persons at about 07.45 pm on 01.05.07 even though Court order was prevailing. In this connection on the strength of the statement given by Smt.Beemakannu, Sri.Sureshkumar, the then SI of Police, Vizhinjam have registered a crime case as Crime 192/07 U/s.143, 147, 149, 447, 427 and 188 IPC and the case was being investigated by him until he was relieved from the post of SI of Police, Vizhinjam, after that the present Sub Inspector took over the investigation of the case and after completing the investigation, charge sheet was submitted to the Hon. Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Neyyattinkara”. Cont.Case (C)No.1739/2007-S - 3 - 5. It is the specific case of the respondents that they had assisted the petitioner to execute the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.458 of 1984 dated 31.01.1995. Thereafter, some other persons have opened up certain gates in the compound wall of the petitioner. It is further stated that when the petitioner/complainant lodged a complaint before the police authorities, a Crime is registered against those persons and investigation is going on. 6. In view of the averments made in the statement filed by the 2nd respondent, it cannot be said that there is either deliberate or wilful disobedience of the orders and directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C).No.8621 of 2007 dated 29.03.2007. Therefore, we do not intend to take cognizance of the contempt petition filed by the complainant. Accordingly, the contempt proceedings are dropped. Ordered accordingly. H.L.Dattu Chief Justice K.M.Joseph Judge vku/DK