IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 10 of 2011(S) -------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.3547/2009 DATED 03/02/2009 .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER -------------------------------------- DENNIES AUGUSTINE, S/O. JOSEPH, AGED 40 YEARS, NEDUMPARAMPIL, KUMBALANGI SOUTH, KOCHI-07. BY ADV. SRI.SUBHASH SYRIAC RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------- P.BEENAMMA AGE 45 YEARS, FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PERUVANTHANAM, KOCHI-7. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.R. BINDU THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- COC.NO.10 OF 2011(S) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T Complaining of disobedience of the directions contained in Annexure-1 judgment in WP(c).No.3547/2009 this Contempt petition has been filed. By the judgment it was directed that the respondent herein shall take appropriate action on the application made by the petitioner for mutation of the property mentioned therein. 2. The learned Government Pleader who has obtained instructions in the matter submits that pursuant to the direction in the judgment, the petitioner was called upon to produce documents, which were produced on 16.2.2009. It is stated that thereafter though endeavor was made to locate the property , petitioner's Advocate who was present at site on behalf of the petitioner could not identify the property sought to be mutated. It is stated that on that therefore the Advocate had promised that once the petitioner is available, he will report before the respondent and help the respondent to identify the property. It is stated that since then there has not been any response from the COC.NO.10/2011 :2 : petitioner and it was therefore that the order could not be passed. 3. Facts being as stated by the Government Pleader, this court will not be justified in concluding that there was any disobedience on the part of the respondent justifying further proceeding under the Contempt of Court Act. In the circumstances the only course open to the petitioner is to co-operate with the respondent to identify the property sought to be mutated and on that basis the respondent shall take action on the application made by the petitioner as directed in the judgment. Contempt Petition is closed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/