IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2009 / 23RD ASHADHA 1931 Con.Case(C).No. 702 of 2009(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.26537/2008 .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SAFIYA MOIDU KUNIYIL HOUSE, KALIYAR PO, VANNAPPURAM VILLAGE IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.UNNIKRISHNAN.V.ALAPATT RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. BENNY SEBASITAN VILLAGE OFFICER, VANNAPPURAM,THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. SR.ANCY THENAMMAKKAL MOTHER SUPERIOR, ADORATION CONVENT KALIYAR PO, VANNAPPURAM VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) FOR R2 SRI.AJEESH K.SASI FOR R2 GP SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- C.O.C.702/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 14th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner alleges violation as regards the direction contained in Annexure-I judgment. According to the petitioner, the order of status quo which this Court has passed in Annexure-I judgment, was later violated by the 2nd respondent. The dispute, according to the petitioner, relates to the obstruction caused by the 2nd respondent to the flow of a stream which allegedly passes through the property of the petitioner as also of the 2nd respondent. The allegations are consequently denied by the 2nd respondent. 2. The question as to what was the status prevailing as on the date of Annexure-I which has later been changed and if so which authority is responsible for alteration to the status are matters which will require factual verification. Admittedly, the issue is pending final disposal before the RDO. It is also conceded that there are two Civil Suits pending between the parties and according to the petitioner, action on the part of the 2nd respondent C.O.C.702/09 2 contravenes the order of injunction passed by the learned Munsiff as well. 3. In these circumstances, if the petitioner moves the RDO, alleging that the status of the property prevailing as on the date of Annexure-I judgment has been altered subsequently, RDO shall conduct a verification on the said aspect and issue suitable direction in relation to the said aspect also in the course of passing of final order as already directed in Annexure-I judgment. Petitioner will be also at liberty to move an appropriate application before the Civil Court, if he is of the opinion that there is violation of the order of injunction passed by the learned Munsiff. Contempt of Court case is closed subject to the above. RDO shall strive to pass final orders within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs