HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY C.C. No.515 of 2010 against C.M.S.A. No.29 of 2008 Date: July 27, 2010 Between: 1. Kummara Yellala Sanjanna (died) 2. Kummara Yellala Siva Ramudu … Petitioners/ Appellants And 1. Mallikarjun and another. … Contemnors/ Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY C.C. No.515 of 2010 against C.M.S.A. No.29 of 2008 ORDER: This contempt case is filed complaining that the first respondent-Official Receiver, Kadapa, has not obeyed the orders dated 05.02.2010 passed by this Court in C.M.S.A. No.29 of 2008. 2. The petitioners herein filed C.M.S.A. No.29 of 2008 under Section 75 of Provincial Insolvency Act against the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2007 in A.S. No.44 of 2007 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, wherein the said appeal was allowed setting aside the order and decretal order passed in I.A. No.56 of 2002 in I.P. No.44 of 2000 dated 17.4.2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur, and the house property shown in ‘B’ schedule was exempted. This Court, by judgment dated 05.02.2010 in C.M.S.A. No.29 of 2008, held as follows: “It is therefore clear from the material on record that the order passed by the Official Receiver insofar as it relates to agricultural house belonging to the appellants herein, is not sustainable, and is therefore held liable to be set aside, and is accordingly set aside. The Official Receiver shall take necessary steps for re- delivery of the agriculture house in favour of the appellants. The Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is accordingly allowed.” 3. The petitioners complain that in spite of the direction of this Court contained the judgment dated 05.02.2010 in C.M.S.A. No.29 of 2008 the first respondent-Official Receiver has not taken any steps to take possession of the property i.e., agricultural house and deliver the same to the petitioners and thereby violated the orders of this Court. 4. The Official Receiver filed a counter affidavit narrating various steps taken in pursuance of the orders of this Court in C.M.S.A. No.29 of 2008. All the efforts made by the Official Receiver for complying with the orders of this court by taking possession of the property after giving repeated notices to the parties have been enumerated in the counter and need no repetition. 5. It is suffice to note that as stated in the counter affidavit the Official Receiver has taken possession of the house with police aid. The learned counsel for the first respondent-Official Receiver would submit that the possession of the house is now with the Official Receiver, but he is unable to proceed further in view of the orders of stay granted by this Court on 28.4.2010 in C.M.S.A.M.P. No.31 of 2010 in C.M.S.A. No.19 of 2010. It is stated that the said C.M.S.A. No.19 of 2010 was filed by the second respondent herein. 6. Smt. Chintalapudi Lakshmi Kumari, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that interim suspension was granted only for a limited period of eight weeks in C.M.S.A.M.P. No.31 of 2010 in C.M.S.A. No.19 of 2010 and the same was not further extended and as of now there is no order of interim suspension in force. To that effect she also filed an additional affidavit of the second petitioner Kummara Yellala Siva Ramudu along with the copy of the order dated 28.4.2010 in C.M.S.A.M.P. No.31 of 2010. 7. As seen from the copy of the said order, the interim suspension was granted only for a period of eight weeks. No material is placed before this Court to show that the interim suspension was subsequently extended. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, would assert that the order of interim suspension was not further extended and as on today no interim order is in force restraining the Official Receiver from taking further steps. 8. In view of the said representation made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and additional affidavit filed by the second petitioner and in the absence of extension of the order of interim suspension, there is no impediment for the Official Receiver to proceed further and comply with the orders passed by this Court in C.M.S.A. No.29 of 2008. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the counter affidavit filed by the Official Receiver narrating various steps taken by him to comply with the orders of this Court, it cannot be said that there was any wilful disobedience on the part of the Official Receiver to the orders passed by this Court. No valid or sufficient grounds were made out warranting further proceeding in this contempt case. 10. In the result, the contempt case is disposed of accordingly. _______________________ G.V. SEETHAPATHY, J Date: July 27, 2010. Note: Issue C.C in two days. //B.O.// BSB