IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2009 / 12TH ASHADHA 1931 Con.Case(C).No. 1879 of 2008(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.4539/2008 Dated 27/03/2008 .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------- ANNAKUTTY, W/O. JACOB, AGED 73 YEARS PICHAPILLI HOUSE, THEKKEPUNNAMATTOM KARA, KADAVOOR VILLAGE. BY ADVS. MR.P.V.BABY, MR.R.KIRAN. RESPONDENT(S): 4TH RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------------------- SOBHA GEORGE, FATHER'S NAME AND AGE IS NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, RECOVERY OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, 8TH FLOOR, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM ,KOCHI 682 036. BY ADV. MR.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ----------------------------- CONTEMPT CASE NO.1879 OF 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of July 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT This contempt of court case is filed against a recovery officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal. 2. On 07/02/2008, an interim order of stay of further proceedings on a recovery certificate and the confirmation of an auction held on 24/01/2008 was granted, for four months. The complaint is that, in violation of that interim order, the sale was confirmed on 28/02/2008. 3. The respondent has filed an affidavit stating that she has never seen the copy of the interim order and it was never served on her CO.C.No.1879/2008 2 office. 4. A reply affidavit is filed refuting the aforesaid stand of the respondent. 5. In the absence of any material with the petitioner to show that the authorised copy of the interim order of stay was served on the respondent or that the contents thereof was informed by the filing of appropriate affidavit in time, I do not find it necessary to proceed with any action under the Contempt of Court Act as against the respondent. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that even when the writ petition was finally disposed of, the bank did not state before this court, the fact that the sale was confirmed. That is a different matter. That by itself would CO.C.No.1879/2008 3 not generate proceedings for the alleged contempt. The petitioner has filed an appeal before the tribunal against the proceedings of the recovery officer. Without prejudice to that, this case is only to be closed. It is so ordered. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv