THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU C.C.No.319 of 2008 ORDER: This contempt case is filed complaining wilful disobedience and deliberate violation of the orders on the part of the respondents made in C.R.P.Nos.798 and 833 of 2006 dated 26.4.2006, whereunder this Court while dismissing the CRPs, directed the respondents not to create any third party interest or encumbrance or alter the nature of the property during the pendency of suit and further the trial Court was directed to dispose of the suit itself within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the order. The complaint of the petitioner is that the respondents, contrary to the observations made by this Court, have executed Document No.2536/06 dated 29.4.2006, Doc.No.3135/06 dated 9.6.2006 and Doc.No.5132/06 dated 7.10.2006 and sold the property by creating third party interest, which is wilful and deliberate violation of the orders of this Court. Therefore, the respondents are liable to be punished under the provisions of Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents 2 and 3 denying the allegations made by the petitioner. It is stated that after dismissal of CRPs, the respondents alienated the property by way of sale and they do not know that this Court prohibited the respondents from alienating the suit property till the disposal of the suit. They came to know about the order only on 9.6.2006 when the same was furnished to them, though they have applied for copy of the order on 28.4.2006. Further, the schedule property claimed by the petitioner in O.S.No.1489 of 2003 on the file of learned II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad is totally different from that of their property. The property claimed by the petitioner is Plot No.3 admeasuring 285 sq.yards in Sy.No.128/3 situated at Mallik Enclave, Yousufguda, Hyderabad and the respondents own and possess the property bearing Plot No.1/A (D.No.8-3-168/E/2/1A) admeasuring 300 sq.yards in Sy.No.128/2 and 128/3 in T.S.No.12/1, Block No.C, Ward No.8 of M.C.H., Rajeev Nagar, Hyderabad. Petitioner and respondent No.1 are no way concerned with the property owned by them and the said fact was admitted by respondent No.1 in I.A.No.3263 of 2006 in O.S.No.253 of 2006 on the file of learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. In view of the above statement that the property sold is different from the property claimed by the petitioner, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed; a) To find out whether the property covered under the agreement of sale dated 30.8.2001, which is the subject matter of O.S.No.1489 of 2003 and the property alleged to have been sold by the respondents under the sale deeds dated 29.4.2006, 9.6.2006 and 7.10.2006 are one and the same; b) To verify whether the door numbers of the premises claimed by the respective parties are one and the same; and c) To verify the location of plot No.3 at Mallik Enclave, Yousufguda, Hyderabad. The Commissioner, after issuing notice to both the parties, submitted his report on 30.7.2009, stating that both the parties are claiming the same property and both of them have identified one and the property. The same is a three floored building with cellar, which is under construction. The walls, slab and other works are finished and the interior and outside finishing, painting, erecting of doors etc., is yet to be done. Therefore, Commissioner proceeded to examine the said building by verifying its boundaries. Further, it is stated in the report that the schedule property mentioned in two sale deeds dated 29.4.2006 and 9.6.2006 out of said three sale deeds dated 29.4.2006, 9.6.2006 and 7.10.2006 are nothing but the semi-finished flats bearing No.102 and 101, situated in Premises No.8-3-168E/1/A on Plot No.1/A in Sy.No.128/2 and 128/3 situated at Yousufguda, Hyderabad. Both the counsel consented for examining the boundaries mentioned in the said sale deeds with that of the subject property. The sale deeds are for 150 sq.yards each. It appears, with the consent of both parties, the Commissioner had taken help of local Postman to verify the location of Plot No.3 of Mallik Enclave, Yousufguda, Hyderabad. In the presence of both parties, the postman stated that the letter R referred in the house number refers to RAJIV NAGAR and the letter M refers to house numbers in MALLIK ENCLAVE. When Commissioner requested to show Plot No.3 of Mallik Enclave, the postman took all of them to main road and showed Plot No.3, Mallik Enclave, where there is a commercial complex existed. The door number existed on the said commercial complex is 8-3-167/M-20/3. The name of the commercial complex is Swaroopa Siri Sampada with cellar + four floors. In the ground floor, there is a ‘RELIANCE FRESH’ departmental stores. Apart from that, it is interesting to notice that first respondent, who purported to have sold the property to the petitioner, has categorically stated that the petitioner had instituted a separate suit bearing O.S.No.253 of 2006 on the file of the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the respondents seeking recovery of possession. In the said suit also, the dispute revolves around the issue relating to identity and location of the property. It is further stated that respondents 2 and 3 have executed sale deeds dated 29.4.2006, 9.6.2006 and 7.10.2006 in favour of other respondents and their case in defence is that the contempt case alleged is merely technical and not substantial because the property sold by them is totally different from the suit schedule property, which was the subject matter of dispute in O.S.No.1489 of 2003 on the file of the learned II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Thus, from the above, it is clear that the person who purported to have sold the property in favour of petitioner himself has stated that the property sold by him is not the same property, which is sold by respondents and the very identity of the property is in dispute before the Civil Court and that is not resolved as of today. Under those circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondents have committed any contempt of the orders of this Court in executing the above sale deeds in favour of third parties during the pendency of suit. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the contempt case is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 15.12.2009 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU C.C.No.319 of 2008 15.12.2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU C.C.No.319 of 2008 Date: 15th December, 2009 Between: Vaziha Tabasum Ghouse .. Petitioner And K.Mahadeva Rao & others. .. Respondents ,