IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2008 / 5TH BHADRA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 453 of 2008(S) --------------------------------------- OS.196/1981 OF THE PRL.SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------------ PHILIP JOSE, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.PHILIP, KAVUNNUKATTIL HOUSE, KIDANGOOR SOUTH P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.G.ANIL BABU RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- DR.SHARMILA MARY JOSEPH, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L. DATTU, C.J. & A.K. BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Cont. Case (C)No. 453 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of August, 2008 Judgment H.L. Dattu, C. J: Inter alia alleging that the respondent in this Contempt Petition has disobeyed the lawful orders passed by the Principal Sub Judge, Kottayam in O.S.No.196/1981, the second plaintiff is before us in this Contempt Petition. 2. The complainant states that the trial court while disposing of OS.No.196/1981 by its order dated 17th July 1986 had passed the following order: “ In the result the suit is decreed injuncting the defendants from realising the balance of kist amount from the plaintiffs until a proper accounting is made as to the loss suffered by the plaintiffs on account of not supplying adequate supply of arrack to them and also for the reason of the cancellation of their licences before 31/3/1981 on that basis fixing their liability to pay the kist amounts for the 2 ranges and in such an accounting the probable expenses for running the shops and also a marginal profit should also be taken into account. After such accounting this decree will not be a bar for the defendants to realise the balance amount found to be due from the plaintiffs. There is no order as to costs.” CCC.453/08. 2 3. After disposal of the Original Suit, the defendants in the suit had filed first appeal before the learned District Judge, Kottayam in AS.No.167/87. Since there was some delay in filing the appeal, the appellants therein had also filed I.A.No.1148/87. The learned District Judge has rejected IA.No.1147/87 by his order dated 19th February 1992. Consequently he has rejected the appeal also. 4. The complainant states in this Contempt Petition that without complying with the directions issued by the Principal Sub Judge while disposing of O.S.No.196/81, the respondent has initiated revenue recovery proceedings to recover the amounts said to be due from the complainant by issuing Annexures 5 and 6 revenue recovery notices. Therefore it is stated that there is wilful and deliberate disobedience of the orders and directions issued by the Principal Sub Judge and accordingly a request is made to initiate appropriate contempt proceedings against the respondent and punish her for the so called disobedience of the orders and directions issued by the Principal Sub Judge. 5. Sri.M.P.Sreekrishnan, learned Government advocate appearing for the respondent submits that the complainant before us, being aggrieved by the revenue recovery notices issued, has already filed a writ petition before this Court and has got an interim order of stay. 6. The assertion and the submission made by Sri.Sreekrishnan is not disputed by Adv.Sri.K.G.Anil Babu. CCC.453/08. 3 7. Since the complainant had already called in question the the correctness or otherwise of the revenue recovery notices issued by the respondent, it may not be necessary for this Court to take cognizance of this Contempt Petition. 8. Accordingly contempt petition is closed for the present. Ordered accordingly. H.L. DATTU Chief Justice A.K. BASHEER Judge an.