HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No. 91 of 2008 O R D E R: The Contempt Case has been filed by the petitioner complaining disobedience of the order dated 28-08-2007 made in SAVP No. 1849 of 2007 in SAMP No. 1203 of 2007 in SA No. 566 of 2007. 2. The contempt case came to be admitted on 26-12-2008. The respondents filed counter affidavit and also additional counter affidavit. In the additional counter affidavit, the respondents have categorically stated that they have not raised any constructions pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court on 13-08-2003 in SAMP No. 1203 of 2007. 3. Para No.4 of the better counter affidavit dated 30-01-2009 reads as hereunder: “4. It is submitted that the total extent of suit schedule property comprises of Ac.1.25 gts. In Sy.No. 794/A situated at Kothapally village, Karimnagar Mandal and District. Out of the said extent, myself and the 3rd respondent sold an extent of 30 gts. In the year 2001 to M/s. Gummadi Ramulu, Kushal, Tirupathi and Sudershan jointly under a regd. Sale deed. Later the said persons converted the land into house plots and sold it to various person including one by name Raju. The said Raju constructed a house about more than 4 years back. The photographs in page No.21 and 21 of the contempt case shows the house constructed by Raju during the pendency of the suit before the trial court. The petitioner is well aware of the said fact. But by suppressing the same, the instant contempt case is filed to harass us. We categorically state that the structures raised therein do not belong to us. We have not raised structures pursuant to interim order passed by t his Hon’ble Court in SAMP No. 1203/2007 and undertaking dt. 13.08.2003.” 4. The contempt case underwent many adjournments. On 6.10.2010 there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner and therefore, it was directed to be posted on 23-04-2010 and on 23.04.2010 also there was no representation on either side and hence the case stood posted to this day under the caption ‘for dismissal’. Despite the matter has being listed under the caption for dismissal, none appears on behalf of the petitioner. 5. It is evident from the counter affidavit that the respondents have taken a specific stand that they have not raised any structures subsequent to the interim order passed on 13-08-2003 in SAMP No. 1203 of 2007 in SA No. 566 of 2007. 6. Such is the situation, I am of the view that the petitioner failed to make out a case that the respondents violated the order dated 13-08-2003 passed in SAMP No. 1203 of 2007 in SA No. 566 of 2007. 7. Accordingly, the contempt case is dismissed. __________ 30-04-2010 Mjl/* HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No. 91 of 2008 Dated: 30-04-2010 Mjl/*