IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2009 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 CRP.No. 626 of 2009() --------------------- AS.66/2002 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ATTINGAL OS.538/1997 of MUNSIFF COURT,ATTINGAL .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF -------------------------------------------------- K.KUTTAPPAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, AGED 87 YEARS,RESIDING AT BINDU NIVAS, AZHOOR P.O.,CHIRAYINKIL. BY ADV. SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN SRI.VINOD J.DEV RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: -------------------------------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. G.RAVEENDRAN NAIR, NOW DISTRICT REGISTRAR,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P.No.626 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 14th December, 2009 ORDER Concurrent decision rendered by two courts below negativing the claim of the petitioner for compensation from the respondents- State and a public official is challenged in the revision. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.538 of 1997 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Attingal. Petitioner is stated to be a licensed document writer. He claimed compensation of a sum of Rs.15,000/- from the respondents/defendants in the suit towards the alleged loss sustained by him on account of the denial of his work as a document writer by the second respondent (third defendant in the suit) despite communicating an order of the High Court staying the operation of the suspension order issued against him. Suit claim was resisted by the defendants filing a written statement. Suit filed against State and three public officials as defendants, after recording of the evidence, proceeded against the State and the third defendant alone (2nd respondent) with the plaintiff seeking permission to withdraw the suit against the other defendants, 2nd and 4th defendants, and that being allowed by the court. Admittedly, pursuant to a proceeding initiated CRP No.626/09 - 2 - for undervaluation and deficiency of stamp duty over a document prepared and produced by the petitioner for registration, after issuing notice and collecting his explanation, the District Registrar placed him under suspension. Petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Government, and an Original Petition before this court challenging the order of suspension. It is his case despite the order of suspension stayed by this court in his Original Petition and that order communicated to the second respondent (3rd defendant), the documents prepared and produced by him were not received and registered, and thereby he had suffered damages to the tune of Rs.15,000/-. Claim of damages raised by the plaintiff was denied by the defendants contending that there was no wilful refusal to receive and register the document produced by him. The learned Munsiff, on the materials placed, came to the conclusion that third defendant (2nd respondent) had not acted negligently in discharging his duties and there was no wilful refusal on his part in registering any documents produced by the plaintiff during the relevant period while the stay order passed by the High Court in his Original Petition was in force. It was also found that the third defendant (2nd respondent) was on leave during such period. Finding that the plaintiff is not entitled to get any CRP No.626/09 - 3 - amount as compensation from the defendants, State and the second respondent, the suit was dismissed. Challenge against that dismissal by way of an appeal before the Sub Judge, Attingal by the plaintiff was also unsuccessful with the learned Sub Judge dismissing the appeal concurring with the views of the court below. Revision is directed against the concurrent finding entered that the petitioner/plaintiff is not entitled to claim for damages from the respondents. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. From the submissions made and also perusing the judgments rendered by the learned Munsiff and also learned Sub Judge, it is seen that the claim for damages canvassed by the plaintiff based on the denial to perform his work as a licensed document writer allegedly by wilful acts committed by the second respondent, then, Sub Registrar of the Sub Registry Office, had been examined with reference to the question whether the second respondent, who, admittedly, was on casual leave during the period of the operation of the stay order issued by the High Court continued as on duty despite the casual leave availed. Claim of the petitioner was based on an order passed by this court staying the operation of the suspension order passed against CRP No.626/09 - 4 - him by the District Registrar. Despite the stay order being communicated, the documents prepared and presented by him were not registered and thereby he suffered damages is the crux of his case. During the relevant period the second respondent (third defendant), the Sub Registrar, was on casual leave, but, under his influence the Head Clerk refused to accept the documents prepared by the petitioner, and therefore the third defendant is personally liable for the damages sustained by the petitioner, and the State, first defendant is jointly liable is the case canvassed for sustaining the suit claim. The admitted facts pleaded in the case reveal that the petitioner/plaintiff had moved a contempt petition in his Original Petition imputing noncompliance of the order passed by this court, and, later, that contempt petition was closed. Petitioner has no case while closing of the contempt proceedings, this court has conferred on him any right to proceed against the State or any of the public officials to claim any damages or any other relief on account of the noncompliance of the order passed in his favour staying the operation of the suspension order in his Original Petition. Closing of the contempt proceedings for whatever be the reasons thereof, in the absence of any other materials showing otherwise, has to be treated CRP No.626/09 - 5 - that whatever grievance the petitioner had against the noncompliance of the order passed by the court had been given a quietus and the issue has been settled conclusively and finally by this court. A claim for damages based on the noncompliance of an order passed by this court which was the core issue in a contempt proceedings initiated by the petitioner, and decided conclusively, is sustainable only if leave had been granted by the court for its prosecution before the civil court. Without adverting to that question, it is seen, both the courts have adjudicated upon the merit of the claim for damages canvassed by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the petitioner has no case that this court while closing the contempt proceedings had reserved the right of the petitioner to sue for damages against the State and the second respondent in respect of the violation imputed in the noncompliance of the order passed staying the operation of the suspension order issued against him. No subordinate court is competent to adjudicate upon any claim for damages in respect of violation of any order of this court for which a contempt proceedings had been initiated and closed by the orders of this court, especially where no reservation had been made for prosecution of such claim before a civil court. In that view of the matter, I find no interference CRP No.626/09 - 6 - with the dismissal of the suit for damages is warranted in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction vested with this court. Revision is dismissed. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE