IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Contempt Case No.1377 of 2010 Between: Rajesh B. Mehta .. Petitioner AND J. Jayapal .. Respondent ORDER: The contempt case at the instance of the plaintiff in O.S. No.272 of 2009 on the file the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Sangareddy against the sole defendant therein is on the allegation that the directions of this Court in C.R.P. No.5704 of 2009, dated 23-12-2009 were violated. When the trial Court did not consider grant of ex parte temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner herein, the civil revision petition was filed and pending the suit for permanent injunction, an order of status quo was granted on 27-11-2009, which was directed to be continued till the disposal of I.A. No.1152 of 2009 for a temporary injunction pending the suit for permanent injunction. The grievance of the plaintiff is that notwithstanding the order of status quo and his continuing in possession as a tenant, the respondent poured water through holes made in the roof of the rented premises damaging the stock in trade in the premises. The respondent denies the allegations in the counter-affidavit and to the rejoinder by the petitioner, he attached number of photographs to probablise the alleged acts of the respondent. The request of the respondent for appointment of an advocate commissioner to know the truth evoked no objection from the petitioner in his rejoinder. In the meanwhile, information was received from the trial Court that after hearing, I.A. No.1152 of 2009 was allowed on 28-10-2010 granting an interim injunction till the disposal of the main suit restraining the defendant and his men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. The trial Court is, thus, seized of the suit and will adjudicate the questions in controversy between the parties on merits in the suit. It has also decided the interlocutory application for temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff on merits, the temporary injunction coming into operation in continuation of the order of status quo granted by this Court. Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides for consequences of disobedience or breach of injunction or other order made under Rules 1 and 2 of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner herein can move the trial Court invoking Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, if there had been breach of either the injunction granted by the trial Court or the order of status quo granted by this Court till the disposal of I.A. No.1152 of 2009 since 27-11-2009 and the trial Court can determine the truth or otherwise of the allegations of either party in this regard and the consequential remedial measures to be taken under the said provision. Instead of indulging in an enquiry into the rival contentions about the incident since the order of status quo herein, it will be in the interests of justice to relegate the parties to the trial Court in this regard in exercise of the specified and inherent jurisdiction of the Court. Therefore, the contempt case is closed with liberty to the plaintiff to move an appropriate application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in respect of any violation of the order of status quo granted by this Court in C.R.P. No.5704 of 2009, which will be decided by the trial Court on merits in accordance with law after giving every reasonable opportunity of hearing to both parties. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 21-01-2011 Svv