IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.MA. No.824 of 2008 Date:13.04.2011 Between: Syed Jaffar and another .....Appellants AND Syed Mohammad and 2 others. ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.MA. No.824 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This is an appeal directed against order dated 12.08.2008 made in I.A.No.622 of 2006 in O.S.No.13 of 2003 by the Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet. The parties are referred to as arrayed in the Interlocutory Application for convenience sake from hereinafter words. The suit was filed by the petitioner for partitioning the plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties into 9 equal parts and allot 2 such shares to the plaintiff by meats and bounds. IA No.118 of 2003 was filed along with the suit for granting injunction in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents from alienating the suit schedule properties. The court below granted injunction in favour of the plaintiff on 10.03.2003 against the respondents 1 to 4 not to alienate or create any encumbrances over the petition schedule properties. Thereafter the petitioner filed I.A.No.622 of 2006 in O.S.No.13 of 2003 under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A C.P.C to punish the respondents 3 and 4 on the ground that they sold the suit schedule properties to third parties. Consequently, the court below allowed the petition by imposing punishment to the respondents 3 and 4 directing to send them to civil prison for a period of 10 days each. The respondents 1 and 2 filed counter denying the pleas taken by the petitioner. It is specifically pleaded therein that the contents of the petition are not true and the 1st of them attested the document without knowing the contents therein whereas the 2nd of them got no knowledge about the contents of the document and without adducing any evidence, the lower court upheld the claim of the petitioner and ordered to send the respondents 3 and 4 to civil prison for a period of 10 days. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed. The learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 has pleaded that when there was no admission of the contents of the documents by them, it cannot be said that the allegations are proved and the court below failed to appreciate the evidence properly and arrived at incorrect conclusions and hence the order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside. When the respondents denied the contents of the sale deed, the court below should have taken steps for recording necessary evidence and appreciate the matter properly and consequently passed the order as required by law. Therefore, prima facie, there is an error in passing the order by the court below ordering to send the respondents 3 and 4 to civil prison. Further, the court below should have given opportunity to both parties to adduce any evidence to establish their respective claims, whereas failed to give any opportunity to do so. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the court below with a direction to dispose of the matter afresh according to law without keeping in mind any observations made in this order giving opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence one after the other for the purpose of establishing their claims. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY,J. 13th April, 2011 GK. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.MA. No.824 of 2008 Date:13.04.2011 Gk.