THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Contempt Case No.158 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is the tenant of the respondent. O.S.No.409 of 2005 was filed in the Court of III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, for eviction of the petitioner. The suit was decreed and the petitioner filed A.S.No.9 of 2007 in the Court of I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The respondent, in turn, filed an E.P. for execution of the decree. The appeal was dismissed for default, whereupon the petitioner filed C.M.A.No.732 of 2007 before this Court. The C.M.A. was allowed, on 13.07.2009, restoring A.S.No.9 of 2007 and directing that the execution shall not be proceeded. This Contempt Case is filed alleging that a representation was made before the Executing Court on behalf of the respondent to the effect that there is no stay of execution, and acting on the same, the Executing Court issued delivery warrant. The petitioner contends that the acts and omissions on the part of the respondent amounting to contempt of Court. The respondent filed counter-affidavit, stating that he strictly went by the advise rendered by the advocate and for any misrepresentation that may have been made in this regard, he cannot be held liable. Learned counsel for the respondent has also filed an affidavit tendering apology for the representation made on his behalf before the executing Court to the effect that there is no stay of execution. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. In clear and categorical terms, this Court held, in its order, dated 13.07.2009, in C.M.A.No.732 of 2007, that the stay of execution granted in the appeal shall revive. Naturally the stay would remain in force till the disposal of A.S.No.9 of 2007. After the contempt case was filed, this Court called for a report from the executing Court. The Officer, who was taken charge on 12.04.2010, submitted a report. According to him, his predecessor believed the representation made by the counsel for the respondent in the trial Court to the effect that there is no stay and passed an order directing delivery of possession. The representation made by the counsel for the respondent in the trial Court, who is incidentally appearing in this Court also, to the effect that there is no stay of execution, is binding upon the respondent. During the course of arguments, he feigned ignorance of the order passed in the C.M.A. The same cannot be countenanced. Even if he is not aware of that order, he ought to have verified the record before making a representation to the effect that there is no stay. Not only by filing an affidavit, but also through the oral representation, learned counsel for the respondent tendered apology and pleaded indulgence of this Court. The petitioner is put to serious detriment, on account of the order directing delivery of possession, though an order of stay is operating in his favour. In the process, he had to incur expenditure and undergo mental agony and tension. This Court accepted the apology tendered by the respondent and his counsel, however, subject to reimbursement of the costs to the petitioner quantified at Rs.5,000/-. Hence, this Contempt Case is closed accepting the apology tendered by and on behalf of the respondent, and the respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- to Sri P.Ananth Nageswar Rao, learned Junior Counsel for the petitioner, and Rs.2,500/- to the petitioner himself. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.21.04.2010. GJ