THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.C.No.760 of 2009 ORDER: The respondent herein filed S.A.No.1208 of 2007 before this Court feeling aggrieved by the judgment in A.S.No.18 of 2006 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, on 19.06.2007. The appeal arose out of O.S.No.1825 of 2003 on the file of the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The respondent is the tenant of the petitioner herein. The suit filed by the petitioner for eviction was dismissed and the lower appellate Court decreed the same. This Court granted order of stay of eviction. The petitioner filed S.A.M.P.No.2801 of 2007 under Rules 1 and 2 of Order XXXIX CPC for injunction to restrain the respondent from changing the nature of the schedule property. After hearing both the parties, this Court granted temporary injunction, as prayed for, on 02.11.2007. This contempt case is filed alleging that the respondent has demolished the compound wall, rearranged the gate and made certain constructions in violation of the orders of injunction granted by this Court. The respondent filed counter-affidavit stating that the compound wall collapsed when a tree on the street has fallen and to protect the premises, he got constructed the compound wall. He has tendered unconditional apology. Heard Sri B. Vijaysen Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.Vijayanandan Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent. The order of injunction granted by this Court is clear and unambiguous. In case the compound wall has fallen, the only course open to the respondent was to approach this Court for necessary directions or to seek permission of the petitioner before undertaking any repair works. He has chosen to undertake the works on his own accord. Therefore, there is a clear violation on the part of the respondent. After hearing the parties, this Court felt that instead of punishing the respondent, the petitioner can be compensated adequately for the wrong committed by the respondent. It is stated that the respondent has paid an amount of Rs.25,000/-through demand draft to the petitioner. Hence, the Contempt Case is closed, duly taking on record, the payment made by the respondent. ______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J Date: 07.10.2009 sj