IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 29TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 1309 of 2010(S) --------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.23585/2010 .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER IN WPC NO. 23585/2010 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- T.T.CHERIAN, S/O. THOMAS, AGED 53, THALAKKAVIL HOUSE, PERUMKULAM.P.O., EDAKKARA.P.O., NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU SRI.B.PREMNATH (E) RESPONDENT(S): 1ST RESPONDENT IN WPC NO. 23585/10 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- E.K. GOPALAKRISHNAN, AGED ABOUT 50, FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THIS PETITIONER, THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PERINTHALMANNA-679322. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.O. (C) No. 1309 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T The counsel for the petitioner is not present. The petitioner has filed this contempt case complaining of non-compliance with the directions in Annexure A1 judgment. The directions in Annexure A1 judgment which reads as follows: “The Village Officer shall complete the proceedings as per the endorsement of the Revenue Divisional Officer in Ext.P6 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner and the third respondent. If the Village Officer is not able to get the matter settled, he shall forward his report to the District Collector within another one week. If the matter is not settled, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall pass final orders in the matter after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as the third respondent within one month thereafter.” Along with I.A. No.679/2010 seeking dispensing with personal appearance of the respondent, the respondent has produced Annexure R1 (a) order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, whereby after hearing both sides he has passed final orders relegating the parties to a civil suit to resolve their disputes. In view of the said order, no orders are necessary in this contempt case and accordingly the contempt case is closed. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE shg/