YESHWANTH SHENOY Vs. SOJAN PAVANIOS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Applicant, a third party to this contempt case, has filed this interlocutory application under Rule 132 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971, for issuance of a certified copy of the notice, petition, connected exhibits/annexures and the affidavit filed by respondent No.23 in the contempt case. In the interlocutory application filed on 7/6/2024, the Registry noted certain defects. Therefore, the unnumbered interlocutory application is listed before the Bench.

(2.) Heard the applicant-third party, who appeared in person, the learned Senior Counsel for the 2nd respondent and the learned Senior Counsel for the 23rd respondent in the contempt case.

(3.) The applicant argued that the Registry treats lawyers differently. A third party application filed as I.A.No.1 of 2024 in Cont. Case (Crl.)No.2 of 2023, under Rule 132 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, which was captioned as a verified petition, which contained only an affidavit sworn to by the applicant, without a proper cause title, was numbered by the Registry. After the substitution of the Rules in Chapter X of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, by the Rules of the High Court of Kerala (Amendment), 2021, such an application by a third party has to satisfy the requirements of Rule 132. Without noticing the same, that application was allowed by this Court on 19/3/2024. The applicant has made available for the perusal of this Court a copy of I.A.No.1 of 2024 in Cont. Case (Crl.)No.2 of 2023 and the order dtd. 19/3/2024. The applicant herein is the respondent in that contempt case. The applicant would argue that since procedure is considered to be the handmade of justice, this Court has ample power to grant the relief sought for in this interlocutory application, even when the application is defective in view of the provisions under Rule 132 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala.