IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2009 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1931 Con.Case(C).No. 555 of 2009(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.7558/2009 Dated 19/03/2009 .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- ZACHARIAH K.SAMUEL, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.S.K.MANI, 112, LAKEDARSHAN NAGAR, KOLLAM-691 001. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): 2ND RESPONDENT ----------------------------- K.THULASEEDHARAN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, FATHER'S NAME OF - NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THE BRANCH MANAGER, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES, ANANDAVALLESWARAM, KOLLAM. SC SRI. K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- COC.No.555 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT By judgment in WP(c).No.7558/2009, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of directing the respondent herein to send the DD covering the full amount due from the petitioner to the HDFC and the HDFC will directly send the documents deposited by the petitioner by registered post to the KSFE. It is alleging non-compliance with the aforesaid direction this writ Petition is field. 2. On behalf of the respondent, after obtaining instructions in the matter, counsel submits that the documents will have to be collected from the Thiruvananthapuram office of the HDFC and that an equitable mortgage has be created in his favour. Since the account of the petitioner is in Kollam and documents are to be collected from Thiruvananthapuram the respondent is willing to depute an officer with the Demand Draft to the Thiruvananthapuram Office of the HDFC and also needs cooperation of the Petitioner to make necessary Coc.No.555/09 2 arrangements in this behalf. It is stated that it is only because of the indifference of the petitioner that this suggestion made by him is not materialized. 3. Having regard to the submissions made on behalf of the respondent, I am not inclined to accept the plea of the petitioner that the respondent has willfully or otherwise disobeyed the direction in the judgment. If as a matter of fact, to carry out the directions in the judgment, co-operation and assistance of the petitioner is also necessary, it is the duty of the petitioner to render the same. In this case since indifference on the part of the petitioner is the reason alleged by the respondent, it is directed that, on the petitioner co-operating with the respondent for delivery of the demand draft, collection of the document of title from the HDFC and for creation of equitable mortgage the respondent shall take necessary steps in that behalf. Contempt Case is closed as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ Coc.No.555/09 3