IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2011 / 13TH ASHADHA 1933 Con.Case(C).No. 459 of 2011(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.15501/2009 .................... PETITIONER / PETITIONER : --------------- FRANCIS STANLEY, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.STANLY, KURUPPASSERY HOUSE, PALLIPORT P.O., MUNAMBAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. T.RAMPRASAD UNNI MS. SMITHA GEORGE RESPONDENTS / 1ST RESPONDENT : --------------- SMT.P.K.NALINI, FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, SUPERINTENDENT OF RE-SURVEY, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, KOCHI- 682030. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. P. N. SANTHOSH THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Cont. Case (C) No . 459 of 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 04th July , 2011 JUDGMENT This Contempt of Court case has been filed by the petitioner alleging wilful disobedience on the part of the respondents in respect of Annexure A verdict. In fact, the very maintainability of the petition was doubted the last time and the petitioner was confronted with the question of limitation, when the decision rendered by this Court in Mayilswami Vs. State of Kerala (1995 (2) KL 178) was cited at the Bar. But, it was held by the subsequent Full Bench in Damodaran Vs. Cherkalam Abdulla ( 2007 (2) KLT 171) that the earlier decision rendered by this Court was not at all good law, in view of the omission to have made a reference to the law declared by the Apex Court on the point, holding that the bar of limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act will be attracted, if it is filed after one year from the relevant date. 2. By virtue of the law declared as above, this petition is not maintainable; the same having been been preferred after the Cont. Case (C) No. 459 of 2011 : 2 : prescribed period of limitation. Annexure A judgment is dated 17.06.2009, whereas the present contempt petition has been filed only on 06.04.2011. In the said circumstances, no interference is possible. It is dismissed accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd