THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.1016 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner filed this Contempt Case under Article 215 of the Constitution of India r/w Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, alleging that the respondent-Md.Liyakat Ali is wilfully disobeying the order dated 21.05.2009 passed by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.13326 of 2009 in W.P.No.10363 of 2009. Heard Sri V.M.M.Chary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.V.Seetharama Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 21.01.2011, today the respondent appeared before this Court and stated that his name is Mohammed Shahabuddin Layeeq and that he is the owner of the premises, which is the neighbourly premises of the petitioner. He further stated that the petitioner filed the writ petition by wrongly quoting his name as Md.Liyakath Ali and obtained interim order and served notice in both the writ petition and contempt case on the said name. Sri D.V.Seetharama Murthy, learned Senior Counsel stated that the respondent has not received any notice in Form-I from this Court, but he has received the notice sent by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner herein filed the above writ petition stating that the third respondent, who is immediate neighbour on the southern side of the property, has started illegal construction on the wall of his property bearing H.No.6-2-11, Opp. Lotous Hospitals, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad. He approached the third respondent and requested to maintain setbacks, but the third respondent did not heed his request and started proceeding with the construction by raising pillars, walls on the common wall of his house. Therefore, he made representations to the respondent authorities to take action against the third respondent by demolishing the structures. As no action has been taken by the respondent authorities, the petitioner filed the writ petition. This Court, on 21.05.2009, while admitting the writ petition, in W.P.M.P.No.13326 of 2009 granted interim direction as prayed for. Now, complaining that the respondent is proceeding with the construction without leaving set backs by wilfully disobeying the order of this Court, the petitioner filed this contempt case. A counter–affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent stating that he is the owner of the premises bearing No.6-2-11/2, admeasuring 79 square yards, which forms part and parcel of the property bearing Municipal No.6-2-11 situated at Lakdikapul, Hyderabad; that the petitioner’s house is situated in the rear side of his property; that he had made construction in the said premises as per the permission obtained much prior to the order of this Court, and there is no illegal construction as alleged by the petitioner. Therefore, the question of wilful disobedience of the order of this Court does not arise. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the notice dated 27.01.2010 issued by him to the respondent, the particulars of the addressee are specifically stated as “Sri Md.Liyakat Ali @ Mohd.Shaha Buddin Layeeq, H.No.6-2-11, Opp.Lotus Hospitals, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad” and that the respondent has taken up the version that his name has been wrongly quoted, for the first time in the contempt case. On verifying the material available on record, it is found that in the writ petition the name of the third respondent has been shown as Md.Liyakat Ali and no alias name was shown. Apparently, the alias name of Mohd.Shaha Buddin Layeeq is coming up for the first time. During the course of arguments, several other pleas have also been urged by the petitioner, which are not taken up in the writ affidavit. Even though the petitioner claims that he is the owner of the premises in question, he has not produced the details with regard to the ownership or extent, much less, a map in respect of the said premises. The petitioner except making bald allegations that he is the owner of the premises in question and that the neighbour is making illegal construction, nothing is forthcoming to establish and identify the property. Further, except stating that he has filed a complaint, the petitioner has not furnished any details of the said complaint. In view of the same, it is clear that the petitioner is only trying to remove the structures made by the respondent by raising several disputed facts, without giving any proper details. Further, the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent being purely civil in nature, it is for the parties to approach the Civil Court. However, it is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent that the respondent has already filed a suit against the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation vide O.S.No.630 of 2010 and the same is pending before the City Civil Court, Hyderabad. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the respondent has wilfully violated the order of this Court dated 21.05.2009. The Contempt Case is accordingly dismissed. However, the parties are at liberty to workout their remedies as available to them under law in appropriate proceedings. B.PRAKASH RAO, J Date: 18.02.2011 va