HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.736 OF 2010 JUDGEMNT: Petitioners filed O.S. No.70 of 2009 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad, Warangal District, against the Church of South India, Diocese of Dornakal, respondent herein, and another in the context of conducting of meetings of the Diocese of Dornakal. They have also filed I.A. No.272 of 2009 to restrain the respondent and another from conducting the meeting on 22-09-2009. An order of interim injunction was granted by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed Receive & Transmit Miscellaneous Petition No.15 of 2009 before this Court. The petition was disposed of on 25-09-2009 directing that the respondent may proceed with the meeting duly issuing fresh notice to all the concerned. It was also observed that any resolutions passed at the meeting so conducted, shall not be enforced for a period of two weeks. 2. Petitioners filed this Contempt Case alleging that the respondent conducted a meeting in utter violation of orders passed by this Court. According to them, no notice was issued. 3. Respondent filed a counter affidavit, inter alia, stating that the meeting was postponed on 22-09-2009 on account of the order of ad-interim injunction and since the members of the Diocese came at Dornakal, urgent notice was served on 25-09-2009 itself and a meeting was conducted on the same day. He further stated that he did not violate the orders of this Court and was also tendered apologies for the lapses, if any, on his part. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. 5. This contempt case is preceded by other similar proceedings. Petitioners contend that though this Court specifically directed that any meeting can be held only after issuing fresh notices, the respondent has convened a meeting without issuing notice. The record, however, discloses that notices, as such, were issued though not with substantial gap between the time of service of notice and convening of the meeting. Even assuming that there are any lapses as regards conducting of the meeting, the same can be canvassed in the pending suit. 6. In the circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that there is any deliberate and wilful disobedience on the part of the respondent and he has also tendered unconditional apology. 7. Hence, the Contempt Case is closed, leaving it open to the petitioners to put forward their contentions as regards the validity of the meeting as well as the resolution passed therein by filing applications in the pending suit. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J August 11, 2010. KTL