ADVOCATE GENERAL Vs. BHOUMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application to commit the respondent for contempt of Court for breach of an undertaking given by him to the Kayamkulam Munsiff's Court in a proceeding under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, O.P. (BRC.) No. 3 of 1972, filed by one Govinda Pillai Narayana Pillai, in which eviction was ordered. The decree holder took out execution as per E.A. No. 493 of 1973. The petition was posted for delivery to 2-4-1973. The respondent, who was the 5th counter petitioner in the said application, applied for 10 days' time to surrender the key. The Court granted time as prayed for, acting on this representation. The Court directed the Amin to effect delivery of the property after the expiry of the said period. Delivery was obstructed by an employee of the respondent on the ground that he was in possession of the property. The Amin had to return the warrant without effecting delivery in view of the obstruction caused.

(2.) The averment in the petition is that the Munsiff acted on the affidavit filed by the respondent which contained the undertaking to surrender the property within 10 days, the implication of course being, he was in possession of the property. The respondent thus made a wrong and misleading statement, deliberately and wilfully, which he did not intend to fulfil and obtained a favourable order.

(3.) The learned Munsiff issued a notice to the respondent to show cause why he should not be proceeded against for contempt of Court. He filed a reply to the said notice. The Munsiff found the reply unsatisfactory and she passed Ext. P1 order holding that there was a prima facie case of contempt of Court.