THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY C.C.No.1075 OF 2011 ORDER This contempt case has been filed by the petitioners- appellants in S.A.No.200 of 2010 complaining disobedience of the order dated 23-4-2010 passed in SAMP No.473 of 2010. Notice to the respondents came to be issued on 18- 8-2011. Respondents entered appearance through a counsel and filed counter-affidavit. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners- appellants submits that the petitioners were in possession of Ac.3-23 guntas as on the date of the order of status quo passed in SAMP No.473 of 2010 and the action of the respondents in moving the application before the reveue authorities for entering their names in the revenue records amounts to violation of the status quo order. A further submission has been made that the respondents initiated criminal proceedings against the petitioners as if they interfered with their possession despite the fact of the petitioners being in occupation of the land in dispute and therefore, initiation of criminal proceedings amounts to violation of the status quo order passed in SAMP No.473 of 2010. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioners were not in possession of the land in dispute as on the date of status quo order and the decree holders in O.S.No.15 of 1999 got the delivery of the suit schedule property through the process of the Court much prior to the order of status quo. Therefore, the accusation leveled against the respondents that they violated the status quo order has no substance. Indisputably, the decree holders in O.S.No.15 of 1999 filed E.A.No.141 of 2009 in E.P.No.7 of 2009 seeking delivery of the suit schedule property. The executing Court ordered E.A.No.141 of 2009 and thereupon delivery of the suit schedule property to the decree holders came to be effected on 21-12-2009. Since the decree holders in O.S.No.15 of 2009 got delivery of the property through process of the Court, the petitioners being parties to the execution petition cannot be permitted to contend that they are still in possession of the suit schedule property. In that view of the matter, the plea advanced by the petitioners that the respondents have violated the order passed in S.A.M.P.No.473 of 2010 has no substance. Accordingly, the contempt case is dismissed. __________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J rkk Dated: 13-12-2011