ORDER 1. THIS IS A STATUTORY APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT WHEREBY THE APPELLANT AND HIS FATHER MATHAI MATHEW WERE CONVICTED FOR ACTING IN CONTEMPT OF THE PERMANENT INJUNCTION ORDER DATED 31-1-1991, IN AS NO. 260 OF 1989 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KOTTAYAM. BOTH WERE SENTENCED TO PAY A FINE OF RS 1000 EACH FAILING WHICH THEY WERE DIRECTED TO UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR ONE MONTH EACH. FURTHER DIRECTIONS THAT WERE ISSUED BY THE HIGH COURT WERE THAT THEY SHALL PUT RESPONDENT 1 HEREIN, WHO WAS THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HIGH COURT, IN VACANT POSSESSION OF THE SHOP IN QUESTION WITHIN ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE OF THE JUDGMENT. IN THIS APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, THIS COURT GRANTED STAY ONLY IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT OF FINE AND NOT ANY OTHER DIRECTION. 2. IT APPEARS THAT THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT WAS ALSO CHALLENGED BY THE FATHER OF THE APPELLANT BY PREFERRING A SEPARATE APPEAL (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 806 OF 1993). THAT APPEAL WAS DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 3. THE HIGH COURT ON FACTS HAS FOUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAD KNOWLEDGE OF THE ORDER OF INJUNCTION PASSED IN FAVOUR OF RESPONDENT 1. THE PLEA THAT THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN RESPONDENT 1 AND THE FATHER OF THE APPELLANT, WAS REJECTED BY THE HIGH COURT. THE FINDING RECORDED BY THE HIGH COURT IS THAT RESPONDENT 1 WAS FORCIBLY THROWN OUT ON 6-4-1992 AND THE APPELLANT AND HIS FATHER ARE CLEARLY GUILTY OF FORCIBLE TRESPASS AND HIS EVICTION. INSOFAR AS THE APPELLANT IS CONCERNED, IN SUBSTANCE THE FINDING IS THAT HE WAS THE MAIN KINGPIN. HE WAS HELD TO BE THE BENEFICIARY OF THE TRESPASS. HIS FATHER WAS AN OLD PERSON. THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE HIGH COURT, TO WHICH DETAILED REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE IN THE JUDGMENT UNDER APPEAL, CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE APPELLANT WAS PERSONALLY AWARE OF THE LITIGATION BETWEEN HIS FATHER AND RESPONDENT 1. IN THAT AFFIDAVIT THE STAND WAS NOT THAT HE LEARNT OF THE FACTS FROM HIS FATHER. ONLY A GENERAL VAGUE STATEMENT WAS A MADE THAT HE WAS NOT AWARE OF ANY LITIGATION. IN THAT AFFIDAVIT THE STAND WAS NOT THAT HE LEARNT OF THE FACTS FROM HIS FATHER. ONLY A GENERAL VAGUE STATEMENT WAS A MADE THAT HE WAS NOT AWARE OF ANY LITIGATION. THE HIGH COURT HAS NOTICED THAT THE FATHER OF THE APPELLANT WAS 81 YEARS OLD AND THAT IT IS FUTILE FOR THE APPELLANT TO PRETEND AND THAT TOO IN A MOST CASUAL MANNER THAT HE DID NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE INJUNCTION ORDER. THE APPELLANT WAS HELD TO BE FULLY AWARE OF THE ORDER. THE BENEFICIARY OF VIOLATION WAS BASICALLY THE APPELLANT HIMSELF. THE APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER THAT WAS FILED B BY THE FATHER HAS ALREADY BEEN DISMISSED THOUGH FOR NON-PROSECUTION. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT AND HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AS NOTICED HEREINBEFORE, WE SEE NO GROUND TO TAKE A VIEW DIFFERENT THAN THAT WAS TAKEN BY THE HIGH COURT. THE FINDING RECORDED BY THE HIGH COURT CANNOT BE FAULTED. THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT. THE APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. AS PRAYED, THE TIME C TO PAY THE FINE IS EXTENDED BY EIGHT WEEKS FROM TODAY.