IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2010 / 13TH JYAISTHA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 545 of 2010(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.21462/2009 Dated 13/08/2009 .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ---------------------------- JUDE THADAVUS, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.M.P. DEVASSI, MALIAKKAL HOUSE, KONTHURUTHI, THEVARA.P.O, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------- AJAYA KUMAR, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THEVARA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM. BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. BENNY GERVASIS. THIS CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, CJ. & P.N.Ravindran, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Contempt Case(Civil) No. 545 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, CJ. The Contempt Case as presented does not disclose any ground for this Court to exercise the jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act. It appears that there has been some civil disputes between the petitioner and other members of his family and it also appears from the bare pleadings that there is some dispute between the petitioner and one Mr.Mohan Rao, the details of which are not available on the record. 2. Earlier, this petitioner had approached this Court with a writ petition complaining that the sole respondent herein is harassing the petitioner at the behest of the 2nd respondent (Mohan Rao) in the writ petition. It appears that there was some monetary transaction between the petitioner and the abovementioned respondent. The said writ petition came to be closed on the statement given by the sole respondent herein that the respondent police officer does not propose to interfere with the civil dispute between the petitioner and the abovementioned COC No. 545 of 2010 -:2:- 2nd respondent. The instant case is filed complaining breach of the undertaking given by the 2nd respondent in the said writ petition. The averments in paragraph 2 of the statements of facts are as follows: “It is respectfully submitted that there was a family dispute within the family of the petitioner regarding the partition of their family property. Since there was an attempt to evict the petitioner from his family house at the instance of the brothers, the petitioner had approached the respondent herein. The respondent after calling the brother of the petitioner deliberated the issue and the brothers of the petitioner has agreed to pay an amount of Rs.2 lakhs to the petitioner for vacating the family house and for shifting the residence. However, when the settlement was informed to the respondent, he has directed the brothers of the petitioner to pay the amount directly to him for appropriating the same for settling the civil dispute between the petitioner and the above said Mohan Rao. The design of the respondent is to appropriate the amount stating that the same will be paid to Mohan Rao. Such an attempt amounts to per se contempt of the judgment of this Honourable Court.” 3. Two features appear from the above extracted portion, (1) that the petitioner himself has invited the service of the police officer in a civil dispute between him and the members of his COC No. 545 of 2010 -:3:- family and (2) on such an invitation the respondent herein obviously cleared the said “dispute” by directing the brothers of the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.2 lakhs to the petitioner, in order that the petitioner may vacate the family house. 4. The petitioner who had invited the police officer to settle the civil dispute now turns around comfortably and complains that the respondent is flouting the undertaking given to this Court visa viz a civil dispute between him and one Mr.Mohan Rao, details of which are not disclosed in the present petition. In the said circumstances we are of the opinion that, the present petition is a sheer abuse of the process of this Court and deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. The unscrupulousness of the litigants like the petitioner without any respect of the procedure established by law is not to be encouraged. The Contempt Case is therefore dismissed. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ttb COC No. 545 of 2010 -:4:-