IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.C.No.372 OF 2010 Between: Danuguri Suramma and another …Petitioners A n d Danuguri Srinu and others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.C.No.372 OF 2010 ORDER: This contempt case is filed by the petitioners in the civil revision petition alleging that the respondents have highhandedly cut and carried away the standing crop in the suit land and sold the same violating the interim orders passed by this Court on 31.12.2009 in CRPMP.No.8709 of 2009. In the said order, this Court while granting interim suspension of the impugned order of injunction further directed that in case the petitioners ultimately lose in injunction petition, they shall deposit an amount of Rs.1 lakh towards the value of the existing crop in the suit schedule property and the respondents shall be entitled for the same. The said order was passed on 31.12.2009. Though the petitioners claim that the copy of the order was communicated to the respondents immediately, the date on which the order was served is not disclosed in the affidavit filed in support of the contempt case. The petitioners alleged that the respondents forcibly entered into the suit land and took away the entire cotton crop raised by the petitioners in an extent of Ac.4-00 in Sy.No.81 in violation of the orders of this Court dated 31.12.2009. It is significant to note that the dates on which the respondents are alleged to have removed the standing cotton crop from the suit land or the dates on which the said crop was sold and the dates on which the respondents are said to have forcibly ploughed the land are nowhere disclosed in the affidavit filed in support of the contempt case. 2. The petitioners further claimed to have given a complaint to the police on 19.01.2010 and in the said complaint, it is alleged that the respondents have ploughed Ac.4-00 acres of land in Sy.No.81 on the evening of 18.01.2010. In the said complaint, it is further stated that the respondents have removed the cotton crop from the land in Sy.No.73 on 10th. When that is so, there is no reason as to why the complaint was delayed till 19.01.2010. In fact, there is nothing on record to show that the said complaint dated 19.01.2010 was given to the police. There is again nothing on record to show that the respondents have removed the standing crop and sold the same in spite of having knowledge of the interim order dated 31.12.2009 passed in CRPMP.No.8709 of 2009. The allegation of the petitioners that the respondents have cut and removed the crop subsequent to passing of the interim order dated 31.12.2009 and in violation of the said orders, remains unsubstantiated. Under those circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondents have committed any such act that constitutes contempt of the orders of this Court. It is, however, open to the petitioners to work out their remedies in the suit with regard to the standing crop alleged to have been taken away by the respondents and seek appropriate relief before the trial Court. 3. In the result, the contempt case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 06th September, 2011 Lrkm