IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2009 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1931 Con.Case(C).No. 518 of 2009(S) --------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.7119/2009 Dated 31/03/2009 .................... PETITIONER : ----------------------- RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O. PULLIKKULAM CHINNA, AGED 52 YRS, THENKARA AMSOM AND DESOM, THENKARA POST, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DIST. BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI SRI.R.SREEHARI RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. PRABHAVATHI, W/O. PULIKULAM BALARAMAN, AGED 40 YEARS. 2. SOUMYA, D/O. PRABHAVATHI, AGED 22 YEARS, 3. SANOOB, S/O. PRABHAVATHI, AGED 19 YRS, ALL RESIDING AT PULLIKULAM HOUSE, POTTASSERI AMSOM AND DESOM, KANJIRAMPUZHA POST, MANNARGHAT TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. ADV. SRI. MANU RAJ THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- C.O.C. No. 518 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT This contempt case was filed by the petitioner in W.P(C) No.7119/2009 alleging that the respondents have willfully and deliberately disobeyed the order passed by this Court by cutting and removing two coconut trees and one mango tree. 2. The suit is one for partition. The trial court passed a preliminary decree in respect of the items 3 and 4. The plaintiff filed an appeal against refusal to pass preliminary decree in respect of items 1 and 2. Pending appeal, the defendants filed an application for permission to construct a house in item No.1 and for cutting and removing of certain trees. The court below granted permission. That order was challenged in the writ petition. The writ petition was disposed of on 31/03/2009 upholding the order passed by the court except to the extent that a commission was directed to be appointed to value the trees before cutting of the trees. The case of the petitioner is that after the order was passed in the Writ Petition, the respondents cut and removed one mango tree and two coconut trees and thereby C.O.C. No. 518 /2009 2 flouted the order passed by this court and thus made it impossible for the commissioner to ascertain value of the tress. The petitioner also produced photographs of the cut down coconut trees and the pit formed as a result of removal of the mango tree. 3. Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents wherein the first respondent states that within three days of receipt of the order passed by the court below, the trees were cut. One coconut tree and a mango tree were cut. The trees were cut before the writ petition was filed. It is also stated that these facts were stated in the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition and it was omitted to be brought to the notice of the court at the time of disposal of the writ petition. According to the respondents, the value of the trees cut and removed by them would be less than Rs.3,000/- and that they have not flouted the order passed by this court. 4. The respondents expressed their readiness to deposit a sum of Rs.3,000/- before the Sub Court, Otappalam to avoid further dispute in the matter and to ensure that the ultimate C.O.C. No. 518 /2009 3 purpose of passing the order in the writ petition is safeguarded. The petitioner has no objection for such a course being adopted. The submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents that the respondents will deposit a sum of Rs.3,000/- before the Sub Court, Ottapalam within a period of one month, is recorded. The amount shall be dealt with in accordance with the judgment to be passed in the appeal. These submissions are recorded and the Contempt case is accordingly closed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm