THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SECOND (2ND) DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Contempt Case No.397 of 2011 Between: Geda Muneswara Rao … Petitioner And: Geda Veera Venkata Satyanarayana …Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Contempt Case No.397 of 2011 ORDER: This contempt case is filed by the appellant alleging that the respondent has violated the order of status-quo granted by this court in ASMP No.1324 of 2007 dated 06.09.2008. 2. Heard both sides. 3. This Court by order dated 06.09.2008 in AS MP No.1324 of 2007 directed both parties to maintain status-quo as on that date with regard to possession and enjoyment and also topographical features. The interim order dated 06.07.2007 wherein ad-interim injunction was granted, was modified accordingly. The appeal is stated to be pending. The petitioner-appellant alleges that in violation of the above orders of status-quo, the respondent resorted to cutting of trees in the suit land from 30.10.2010. In support of the said plea, the petitioner filed certain photographs. 4. Earlier the petitioner filed similar contempt case in CC No.1639 of 2009 making a similar allegation of felling of trees, relying upon certain photographs. This Court by order dated 01.04.2010 dismissed the said contempt case observing that the material placed on record does not establish the allegation of the petitioner that the orders of status-quo have been violated by the respondent. 5. In the present case also, except filing certain photographs and alleging that a complaint was also given to the police regarding the alleged felling of the trees in violation of the orders of the court, no material is placed to establish prima-facie that the respondent had cut the trees in violation of the orders passed by this court. The affidavit is also bereft of details of alleged acts of violation. It is open to the SHO of concerned Police station to whom the complaint is given to investigate into the complaint given by the complainant and take necessary action. There are however, no valid or sufficient grounds to proceed further in this contempt case. 6. In the result, the contempt case is dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 02.08.2011 bss