P.K.V.Saidalavi @ Bavutty v. Fathima

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/21ST KARTHIKA, 1937 Con.Case(C).No. 1484 of 2015 (S) IN O.P.(C).1641/2014 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP(C) 1641/2014 of DATED 22-07-2014 ................................................ PETITIONER:

-------------------- P.K.V.SAIDALAVI @ BAVUTTY S/O. MOIDEENKUTTY HAJI, PUTHIYAKATH KANNACHAN VEETIL POST PACHATTIRI, TIRUR - 676 105.

BY ADVS.SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL SMT.ANJALI G.KRISHNAN RESPONDENT/4th RESPONDENT IN O.P.(C). & S.I. OF POLICE : -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. FATHIMA D/O. SAIDALAVI, MANGALAM AMSOM KOOTTAYI DESOM POST KOOTTAYI, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM - 676 562

2. SUMESH SUDHAKARAN, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRUR POLICE STATION POST TIRUR, MALAPPURAM - 676 101.

R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ANITHA RAVINDRAN THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Con.Case(C).No. 1484 of 2015 (S) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES ----------------------------------------- ANNEXURE A1:

TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.07.2014 IN O.P.(C). NO. 1641/2014 ANNEXURE A2:

TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER DATED 23.03.2015 ANNEXURE A3:

TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 01.10.2015 RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:- --------------------------------------- ANNEXURE R1(a):

COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 01.10.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, TIRUR ANNEXURE R1(b):

COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF ANNEXURE R1(a) /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE DCS

V. CHITAMBARESH, J --------------------------------------- Cont. of Court Case (C). No. 1484 OF 2015 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of November, 2015

JUDGMENT

The materials on record are insufficient to hold that the first respondent has violated Annexure A1 order. This is particularly so in the light of the submission made by the second respondent.

2.

The petitioner as well as the first respondent are parties to a decree in a suit for partition. It is reported that delivery has already been effected in favour of the first respondent.

3.

It is true that the second respondent has received a complaint alleging commission of offence. The proceedings therein will take its own course. The contempt of court case is closed.

V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE DCS