IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 12TH DECEMBER 2011 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA 1933 Con.Case(C).No. 1248 of 2011(S) NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE JUDGEMENT IN OPC.1312/2011 Dated 24/05/2011 PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. REGHUNATHAN, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.RAMAKAMMATH, THURUTHIPPALLY HOUSE, UDAYANAPURAM P.O., VADAKKEMURI VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK. 2. RENGAN T.R., AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.RAMAKAMMATH, THURUTHIPPALLY HOUSE, UDAYANAPURAM P.O., VADAKKEMURI VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH(VAIKOM) SRI.SREEJITH.S.R. RESPONDENT: --------------- G.ANIL, MUNSIFF, VAIKOM MUNSIFF'S COURT VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.R.RANJITH THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ CONTEMPT OF CURT CASE NO.1248 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioners filed O.S.No.222 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff of Vaikom, for injunction. An order of temporary injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed I.A.No.1673 of 2010 alleging that the defendant violated the order of injunction and praying for taking action under Rule 2A of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioners filed O.P.(C) No.1312 of 2011 praying for a direction to the trial court to expeditiously dispose of I.A.No.1673 of 2010. The Original Petition was disposed of by the judgment dated 24.5.2011, which reads as follows: “The plaintiffs in O.S.No.222 of 2010 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Vaikom pray for a direction to the trial court to expeditiously dispose of I.A.No.1673 of 2010 filed by them under Rule 2-A of Order 39 C.P.C. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the trial of the suit commenced and the CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE NO.1248 OF 2011 :: 2 :: evidence of the plaintiffs was over before closure of the courts for summer vacation 2011. The trial of the suit is not over. 3. Since the trial of the suit is going on, I do not think that any direction is required in the matter. Certainly the court will dispose of I.A.No.1673 of 2010 as well. The Original Petition is accordingly closed.” 2. Thereafter, the suit was dismissed by the judgment and decree dated 23.8.2011. However, I.A.No.1673 of 2010 was not disposed of. According to the petitioners, the learned Munsiff committed contempt of court by not disposing of I.A.No.1673 of 2010. 3. When the Contempt of Court Case came up for admission, the Registry was directed to ascertain from the Munsiff's Court, Vaikom as to whether I.A.No.1673 of 2010 was disposed of. The learned Munsiff has filed a report dated 7.12.2011 stating that the application was not disposed of and it happened due to an inadvertent omission. The learned Munsiff stated in the report that CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE NO.1248 OF 2011 :: 3 :: originally the suit as well as I.A.No.1673 of 2010 were dismissed for default. Later, the suit was restored to file. Naturally, I.A.No.1673 of 2010 also ought to have been restored to file. However, when the suit was tried and disposed of, it was not brought to the notice of the Court and either party did not point out that I.A.No.1673 of 2010 was to be disposed of. The judgment passed in O.P.(C) No.1312 of 2011 was also not produced by the plaintiffs before Court. However, the learned Munsiff reported that the judgment in the Original Petition was received in his office, but, on that day, he was on leave. The judgment was not brought to his notice by the Junior Superintendent and action has been taken against him for the same. It is stated by the learned Munsiff in the report that there was no wilful act on his part in not complying with the direction in the judgment in the Original Petition. 4. I am fully convinced with the report dated 7.12.2011 submitted by the learned Munsiff which reflects the true state of affairs. In fact, there was no specific direction in the judgment in O.P.(C) No.1312 of 2011 to dispose of I.A.No.1673 of 2010 along with the suit. An application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure can be disposed of along with the suit or before CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE NO.1248 OF 2011 :: 4 :: that or even after disposal of the suit. It is true that I.A.No.1673 of 2010 has not been disposed of. That does not mean that the learned Munsiff has committed contempt of court. I do not find any ground to issue notice in the case. The Contempt of Court Case is, accordingly, dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/