IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR : PRESENT : THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE : E. DHARMA RAO. CONTEMPT CASE No. 362 of 2004 (Contempt Case under Section 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act to punish the Respondents herein for guilty of violating the injunction order dated 27-8-1992 in CMP. No. 5671 of 1991 In A.S. No. 2248 of 88 and the execution of sale deed dated 22-2-2002 is willful and in gross violation of the injunction order granted by the High Court. Between: 1. Aravala Chinnammanna 2. Bobbadi Ammanna 3. Bobbadi Vijayaramaraju 4. Aravala Vijaya 5. Arvala Bharathi 6. Bobbadi Seetha Ratnam 7. Bobbadi Seetharatnam Appala Suryanarayana 8. Bobbadi Bheemarao 9. Bobbadi Rama Rao 10. Bobbadi Chinnam Naidu .. PETITIONERS AND 1. Bobbadi Chinnammadu, W/o late Surya Appalanaidu, Pusarlapadu Village, Gara Mandalam, Srikakulam District 2. Buchi Venkata Satya Ramana Murthy, S/o Pappala Rajara, R/o Venkatapuram H/o Naira, Srikakulam District 3. Appala Raja Sekhara Rao, S/o Pappala Raja Rao, R/o Venkatapuram H/o Naira, Srikakulam District .. RESPONDENTS The contempt case coming on for hearing upon perusing the Case and the affidavit filed herein and the orders of the High Court dated: 313-03-2003 and 02-07-2004 and made herein and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. K.V. Satyanarayana, Advocate for the petitioners and of Mr. N.V. Ranganatham, Advocate for the respondents The Court made the following ORDER:- “ Upon a mention made in the morning by Sri N.V. Ranganatham, Srnior Counsel that by virtue of order dated 2-7-2004 passed by this Court, respondents 2 and 3 are present. Actually, this case is listed before my brother Judge, Sri Justice L. Narasimha Reddy and the learned Judge could not attend the Court today; therefore he made a mention before this Court as respondents 2 and 3 came all the way from Sreekakulam District. Permission is granted to the learned counsel. Respondents 2 and 3 are present as directed, by this Court on 2-7- 2004 by my learned brother Sri Justice B. Prakash Rao and their presence is marked and further presence is dispensed with until further orders. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. N.V. Ranganaham that Respondent No. 1 being an old aged lady, her financial condition is not so sound to attend the Court, therefore her presence may also be dispensed with. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the presence of the first respondent is dispensed with for two weeks. Office is directed to communicate the order to the respondents. Post after four weeks. ” DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// for SECTION OFFICER 2 To 1. Bobbadi Chinnammadu, W/o late Surya Appalanaidu, Pusarlapadu Village, Gara Mandalam, Srikakulam District 2. Buchi Venkata Satya Ramana Murthy, S/o Pappala Rajara, R/o Venkatapuram H/o Naira, Srikakulam District 3. Appala Raja Sekhara Rao, S/o Pappala Raja Rao, R/o Venkatapuram H/o Naira, Srikakulam District (Addressees 1 to 3 BY Speed Post along with a coy of Petition and affidavit) 4. One spare copy. USR. HIGH COURT DATED : 30-07-2004 Note : Post after four weeks. ORDER C.C. No. 362 of 2004 Dispensing with the presence of the respondents HIGH COURT Drafted By : USR Drafted On : 03-08-2004 EDRJ DATED : 30-07-2004 Note : Post after four weeks ORDER C.C. No. 362 of 2004 Dispensing with the presence of the respondents