IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 22ND MAGHA 1929 Con.Case(C).No. 1391 of 2007(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.949/2006 Dated 20/07/2006 .................... PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS ------------------------ P.V.POTHAN, AGED 68, S/O. VARGHESE, LOYALA COTTAGE, PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP M.VARUGHESE RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT ----------------------- SAJI BASHEER, FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN, M.D.KERALA SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.FAZIL THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== C.O.C.No.1391 of 2007 ================== Dated this the 11th day of February, 2008 J U D G M E N T In this contempt case the petitioner complains of non- compliance with Annexures A1 and A2 orders, which are interim orders in the writ petition. The prayers in the writ petition are as follows: “Call for the records relating to Exhibit P1 to P6. 1. Issue a writ of certiorari or appropriate writ direction or order and quash Ext.P6. 2. Issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ direction or order and direct the respondent to issue sale/Patta in respect of shed No. 2 & 4 purchased by the petitioner on the basis of the hire purchase agreement. 3. Grand such other relief as this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case. The prayer for interim relief is as follows: “Pending the disposal of the writ petition this Hon'ble court may be pleased to direct the respondent, not to dispossess the petitioner from shed No.2 to 4 of the Mini Industrial Estate Kollakadave now occupied by the petitioner.” In the main prayer, the petitioner had no prayer in respect of Shed No.3. But in the prayer for interim relief he included shed No.3 also. It is under the above circumstances Annexures A1 and c.o.c.1391/07 2 A2 orders included shed No.3 also. In so far as the petitioner has no prayer in the writ petition in respect of Shed No.3, he could not have validly sought an interim prayer in respect of shed No.3 also. Now the violation complained of is in respect of shed No.3. Today I had modified the interim order restricting the interim order in respect of shed Nos.2 and 4. Therefore, I think that no further proceedings are necessary in this contempt case. Accordingly, the same is closed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge