IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 20TH MAY 2010 / 30TH VAISAKHA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 575 of 2010(S) ------------------------------ (AGAINST THE INTERIM ORDER DT.4.5.2010 IN WP(C) NO.14266/2010) PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER: --------------- BABY RENJITH, S/O.BHASKARAN, AGED 49 YRS. NADUVILAPURAKKAL, HOUSE, LALOOR ROAD, AYYANTHOLE (PO)., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.E.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S)/1ST RESPONDENT: --------------- K.S.PADMAKUMARI, AGE NOT KNOWN, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THRISSUR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ Contempt of Court Case (C) No.575 OF 2010 ------------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. The contempt petition is filed alleging violation of Annexure-1 order. Through Annexure-1, all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P7 was directed to be kept in abeyance, till 20.5.2010. Annexure-1 order was issued on 4.5.2010. Allegation of the petitioner is that inspite, Annexure-2 Sales Certificate was issued with a date of 4.5.2010. Annexure-3 is the postal cover produced to show that Annexure-2 Sales Certificate was despatched from the office of the respondent only on 5.5.2010. 2. There is no averment in the Contempt Petition as to when the interim order was served on the respondent. Neither there is an averment to the effect that the respondent was aware of the interim order when he had issued Annexure-2 Sales Certificate. Hence I am of the opinion that there is no material to proceed with the contempt case. 3. However, the writ petition is pending disposal. COC-575/2010-S 2 Challenge in the writ petition is against confirmation of sale. The main relief can still be agitated in the writ petition. 4. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that no further action will be pursued by the respondent till consideration of the writ petition. In view of the above undertaking I am of the opinion that the Contempt Petition can be closed without prejudice to rights of the petitioner to challenge confirmation of sale and the subsequent proceedings including the Sales Certificate, in the writ petition. 5. Accordingly the Contempt of Court Case is hereby closed without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner as mentioned above. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb