IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2009 / 2ND SRAVANA 1931 Con.Case(C).No. 834 of 2009(S) -------------------------------------------- THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.23803/2008 DATED 20/08/2008 .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- C.C.CHACKO, AGED 71 YEARS, S/O. C.V. CHANDY, RESIDING AT SANTHALAYAM, AMBALAVAYAL, WAYANAD. BY ADV. MR.P.RAMAKRISHNAN. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- RANI GEORGE, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SPL. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. A.G. ANEETHA. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Cont.Case(C).No.834 of 2009-S = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 24th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner is a member of a co-operative bank in relation to which a surcharge order has been issued. In the writ petition, it is pointed out that the said order is against three persons, including the petitioner. This application for initiating action under the Contempt of Courts Act is filed on the premise that the directions contained in Annexure-A judgment have not been complied with. The direction was that the matters relating to Exts.P4 and P5 in the writ petition will be settled in accordance with law within an outer limit of four months. The petitioner does not dispute the submission on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner has not paid his portion of the dues. His learned counsel submits that he has submitted objections contending that COC834/09 -: 2 :- the claim itself is time barred and that the petitioner's complaint is that action is not being taken against all. I do not think that action under the Contempt of Courts Act is to be initiated in the case in hand, particularly when there could be legitimate disputes by the other persons who are being proceeded against and in the wake of the fact that the petitioner himself has not paid the amounts which he volunteered to pay, going by Annexure-A judgment. This contempt of court case fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/250709