High Court of KeralaCon.Case(C)/1056/2015closed

Udayan v. The Thrissur District Registrar

2015-07-22Honourable Mr. Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2015/31ST ASHADHA, 1937 Con.Case(C).No. 1056 of 2015 () -------------------------------------------------- (AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO. 12800/2011 DATED 31/07/2014) ----------------- PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:

------------------------------------------------

1. UDAYAN, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.SREEDHARAN, THOPPIL HOUSE, EROOR P.O., THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN -682 306

2. JAYAN V.V., AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.V.R VISWAMBHARAN, VADAKKUMPURATH HOUSE, EROOR P.O., THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN -682 306 BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SURESH KUMAR RESPONDENT/1ST RESPONDENT :

---------------------------------------------------- MR.K.KRISHNAN, AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN, THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, CHEMBUKAVU , THRISSUR -680 001 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.T.SHEEBA THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

sts

COC.NO.1056/2015 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

ANNEX 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31/07/2014 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WP(C).NO.12800/2011. ANNEX II COPY OF THE ORDER NO.M2/1651/TRISSUR DATED 21/02/2015 BY OFFICE OF TRISSUR DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:

NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE sts

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

***************************************************************************** Contempt of Court Case (C) No.1056 of 2015 ****************************************************************************** Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2015

JUDGMENT

Pursuant to the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.12800/2011, an order has been passed on 21.2.2015. The petitioner submits that the judgment is not in consonance with the directions of this Court. In fact, this Court had only directed the respondent to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner.

In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the order is produced as Annexure-2, is in compliance with the judgment and this Contempt Case is closed.

Sd/- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE ln