THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Suo Motu Contempt Case No.885 of 2011 ORDER: This Contempt Case is taken up by this Court suo motu. C.M.A.No.327 of 2011 was filed before this Court by one, Sri Pasupuleti Malyadri, feeling aggrieved by an order dated 06-04-2011 passed in I.A.No.194 of 2010 in O.S.No.88 of 2010 by the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole. Through the said order, the trial Court dismissed the I.A., filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. An order of temporary injunction was passed by this Court on 11-04-2011 in CMAMP.No.632 of 2011 in C.M.A.No.327 of 2011. However, on 15-07-2011 it was brought to the notice of this Court that, in utter violation of the order of injunction, the bailiffs of the Court delivered possession of the premises on 12-04- 2011. After hearing the parties at some length, this Court initiated contempt proceedings against the two bailiffs, who are the respondents herein. The appellant in the C.M.A. contended that when the 1st respondent herein accompanied by the 2nd respondent came to the schedule property for delivery of possession in execution of the decree in another suit, the copy of the order of this Court in C.M.A.M.P.No.632 of 2011, dated 11-04-2011 was shown and despite the same, the 1st respondent proceeded to deliver the possession. It is also stated that right on the spot, the premises were demolished, based upon the delivery of possession. This Court called for a report from the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, as to the manner in which, he dealt with the proceedings. A counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2. The purport thereof is that they proceeded on the assumption that the subject-mater of C.M.A.No.327 of 2011 is different from the one, in O.S.No.45 of 2005, the decree of which was executed. Further, the entrustment is said to be only to the 1st respondent, and that the 2nd respondent has accompanied him, when he was on a different personal work altogether. The 1st respondent filed a separate affidavit, tendering his apology and prayed that, this Court may impose any punishment of its choice, obviously meaning that, he may not be imposed any punishment, contemplated under the Contempt of Courts Act. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T. Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents. It is not in dispute that when the 1st respondent was taking steps for execution of the decree in O.S.No.88 of 2010, the judgment- debtor therein, who is also the appellant in C.M.A.327 of 2011 has shown the copy of order of temporary injunction granted by this Court, on 11-04-2011, in C.M.A.M.P.No. 632 of 2011. In case the 1st respondent entertain any doubt, as to the identity of the properties, which are the subject-matter of both the proceedings, the only step he ought to have been taken is, to approach the concerned Court and prayed for further directions. He was not at all justified in proceeding on the assumption, that the properties are different from each other. In the ordinary course of the things, the 1st respondent deserves the maximum punishment for flouting the orders of this Court. However, taking a lenient view, and keeping in view the fact that his family is dependent on him, it is felt that ends of justice would be met, if he is reverted to the previous post, from which he was posted on transfer, for a period of three months. It is made clear that this punishment is being imposed as an alternative for the one, of imprisonment under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, lest that may result in automatic suspension of the 1st respondent, and the consequential disciplinary proceedings. Across the Bar, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, after consulting his client, accepted the said proposal. The Contempt Case is accordingly disposed of, directing that the punishment of reversion to the post to which the 1st respondent was working before he came to be appointed on transfer, as bailiff, shall stand imposed upon him. The learned District Judge, Ongole, shall issue orders in this regard, forthwith. On expiry of three months, the 1st respondent shall be restored to his present position. The Contempt Case against the 2nd respondent is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.04-11-2011. KO