Third parties do not have the legal or statutory right to seek impleadment or intervention in contempt of court proceedings once contempt proceedings are initiated.

JUDGMENT :

Alexander Thomas, J.

1. The above Contempt Appeal (C) has been instituted to impugn the order dated 8.12.2020 rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court on I.A.No.9/2020 in contempt of court case (C) No.2615 of 2019.

2. Heard Sri.Mathews J.Nedumpara, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Sri.K.V.Sohan, learned State Attorney appearing for the 2nd respondent-District Collector and Sri.S.Sreekumar, learned senior counsel instructed by Sri. Roshen. D.Alexander, learned counsel appearing for contesting respondent No.1.

3. The appellants herein are not parties to the Writ Petition (Civil), W.P.(C).No.25089 of 2019, from which the abovesaid contempt of court case COC No.2615 of 2019 has arisen. The 1st respondent herein had filed the above contempt of court case (C) No.2615 of 2019 alleging non-compliance of the directions and orders passed by this Court in the judgment dated 3.12.2019 in W.P.(C).No.25089/2019. The appellants herein thereafter have approached the learned single Judge by filing the instant unnumbered I.A. which was subsequently numbered as I.A.No.9 of 2020 in the above contempt of court case (Civil) No.2615/2019, praying that they are directly affected by the proceedings in the contempt of court case and that if the contempt action is taken against the respondent-District Collector, it would amount to directly affecting the rights and interests of the appellants herein. The learned single Judge of this Court as per the impugned order rendered on 8.10.2020 has held that the third parties like the appellants herein do not have any statutory right to seek impleadment or intervention in contempt of court proceedings. It is this order rendered by the learned single Judge on 8.10.2020 in the abovesaid contempt of court case No.2615 of 2019 that is under challenge in this case. Various submissions have been made by counsel for the appellants as well as the abovesaid learned senior counsel appearing for contesting respondent No.1 and the learned State Attorney appearing for the 2nd respondent-District Collector.

4. After hearing all the parties concerned and after bestowing anxious consideration, we are of the considered view that the short point that is to be decided in this case is only as to whether the third parties like the appellants herein have the legal or statutory right to seek the impleadment or intervention in contempt of court proceedings. The matter in issue in that regard is no longer res integra and it is now well established that once contempt proceedings are initiated, then the matter is entirely between the court and the alleged contemnor concerned and the third parties cannot demand that they should be allowed to get themselves impleaded in the contempt proceedings or they should be allowed to intervene in the contempt proceedings etc.

5. A Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in Sivankutty v. K.C.Joseph : 2017 (1) KHC 940 has taken the considered view that when the court has taken cognizance of a case of contempt, then the matter is entirely between the court and the contemnor and there is no scope for any third party intervention in such contempt proceedings.

6. We are in respectful and full concurrence in the abovesaid views already rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the abovesaid reported judgment (2017 (1) KHC 940). During the course of submissions, we had also specifically queried to Sri.K.V.Sohan, learned State Attorney as to the stand of the State on this issue regarding the right claimed by the third parties like the appellants for seeking impleadment in the contempt proceedings.

7. The appellants would urge that though they are not parties to W.P.(C).No.25089 of 2019, they are directly affected by the orders and directions given in the judgment in that W.P.(C)., as they are the parishioners of the church. That as they are thus directly affected parties, they have the right to seek intervention or impleadment in the contempt case, which is for enforcement and