LAWS(KER)-2022-4-65

MATHEW Z PULIKUNNEL Vs. SOPHY THOMAS

Decided On April 07, 2022
Mathew Z Pulikunnel Appellant
V/S
Sophy Thomas Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to our order dtd. 7/3/2022, the 2nd respondent filed an affidavit dtd. 1/4/2022 giving her explanation as regards the delay that was occassioned in putting up the file relating to the writ petition before the jurisdictional court concerned. On a perusal of the said affidavit, we were not satisfied with the explanation given for the delay occasioned during the period from 14/6/2021 to 9/7/2021. We also found that there was no satisfactory explanation for the repeated noting of defects by the Registry. Taking note of the views expressed by us at the time of hearing on 5/4/2022, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent undertook to file another affidavit in the matter.

(2.) In the second affidavit that is filed before us today, the 2 nd respondent tenders an unconditional and unqualified apology before this Court for the laxity in not implementing the directions contained in the decision in Ayub Khan P.A. v. State of Kerala and Another - [2012 (1) KHC 615]. She has further submitted that instructions would be issued to the Registry forthwith to the effect that all the defects which come to the notice of the Registry shall be pointed out at first instance itself to facilitate curing of defects with all possible expedition. By way of clarification, it is further stated that instructions would be issued to the Registry not to raise fresh defects periodically, after the earlier defects have been cured or answered.

(3.) Taking note of the subsequent affidavit filed before us today, and finding that there has been an expression of remorse at the treatment meted out to counsel for the petitioner and that there is an assurance given that in future, the Registry would not note defects in a phased manner and that the directions already issued by a Division Bench of this Court in Ayub Khan [supra] will be adhered to in letter and spirit, we deem it appropriate to close this Contempt of Court Case, recording the contents of the affidavits aforementioned.