IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THIRTIEH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.C. No.30 of 2011 Between: Nama Bhoomaiah and others … Petitioners and Bathola Nageshwar Rao and another … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.C. No.30 of 2011 ORDER: This contempt case has been filed seeking to punish the respondents for contempt of Court for violating the orders passed by this Court in C.R.P. No.5598 of 2008 on 07.10.2010. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents have filed a suit in O.S. No.43 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kamareddy for declaration that they are absolute joint owners of the suit land admeasuring 80 feet in length and 35 feet in width. Along with the said suit, they also filed an application in I.A. No.215 of 2008 for grant of temporary injunction. Further, father of the petitioners also filed an application in I.A. No.48 of 2009 for the same relief against the respondents. The learned trial Court by common order dated 01.05.2009 dismissed I.A. No.215 of 2008, filed by the respondents, and allowed the I.A. No.48 of 2009, filed by the father of the petitioners herein. Aggrieved by the said common order dated 01.05.2009, the respondents preferred an appeal in C.M.A. No.8 and 9 of 2009 before the learned District Court, Nizamabad and the learned District Court on 05.10.2009 dismissed the appeals against which, the respondents filed revisions in C.R.P. Nos.5598 and 5685 of 2009. This Court by order dated 07.10.2010, while setting aside the order of the Courts below, disposed of the said revision petitions recording the undertaking given by the respondents, before the lower appellate Court, that no construction would be made within the five feet from the existing wall towards the Eastern boundary. Para 7 and 8 of the common order passed in the said revision petitions, reads as under: “7. The lower appellate Court observed that “Further it is open to the plaintiffs and defendants, to go ahead with the construction, if the defendant is satisfied that the plaintiffs are ready to leave 5 feet land from the common lane towards eastern side of the defendant.” When the parties are at loggerheads and approached the Court, leaving the relief sought for by the plaintiffs to the satisfaction of the defendant, more particularly when they have given undertaking to the Court, is not justified and the Court below ought to made the said observation as the order of the Court. 8. For the foregoing reasons and recording the undertaking given by the petitioners, the impugned orders of the Courts below are set aside and the petitioners are permitted to proceed with the construction by leaving 5 feet land from the common lane towards eastern side of the defendants. The revisions are accordingly disposed of. No costs.” The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents even had not left any open land, much less five feet, as per the orders of the Court and proceeding with the construction encroaching entire open land. Hence, the present contempt case has been filed. Heard the learned counsel and perused the material on record. From a perusal of the record, in support of the contention of the petitioner, he filed certain photographs to show that the respondents are proceeding with the construction without leaving any open land. Taking into consideration the same, this Court on 15.04.2011 observed that to sustain the plea taken by the petitioners that there is violation of the orders passed by this Court, certain photographs have been filed, basing on which, this Court cannot adjudicate the matter whether there is any violation or not; in that view of the matter, it is left open to the petitioners to make an appropriate application seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner so as to find out the alleged violation on the part of the respondents herein in which case, the Court below can pass appropriate orders on such application. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he already filed an application in I.A. No.123 of 2009, seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for recording the particulars with regard to nature of the construction of the respondents so as to identify the area of the construction whether it is in accordance with the undertaking given by the respondents or not and the said application is still pending. Therefore, he submits that the Court below may be directed to dispose of the said application as expeditiously as possible, so as to take further action in this contempt case. In view of the fact that an application in I.A. No.123 of 2009, seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, is pending before the Court below, I deem it appropriate to direct the Court below to dispose of the said application and further in view of the changed circumstances no contempt would survive presently. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel, the Court below is directed to dispose of the I.A. No.123 of 2009, in accordance with law, within a period of three weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In view of the above, this contempt case is closed with a liberty to the petitioners to file fresh contempt case, if so advised. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 30.06.2011 LSK