THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.C.No.219 of 2009 Between: Dr.Syed Ali Zaheer …Petitioner A n d Munawar Banu …Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.C.No.219 of 2009 ORDER: This contempt case is filed under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for punishing the respondent for disobeying the order dated 31-12-2008 in C.R.P.No.5910 of 2008. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The respondent herein filed the suit O.S.No.1540 of 2008 against the petitioner for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner herein from repairing and plastering the partition wall on the eastern side after the open space in between ‘A’ and ‘B portions, on either side of which there are three mulgies and open space. The plaintiff also filed I.A.No.787 of 2008 for temporary injunction. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner- defendant filed an appeal in C.M.A.No.216 of 2008, on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and the said appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-defendant preferred revision in C.R.P.No.5910 of 2008. By order dated 31-12-2008, this Court modified the impugned order of injunction to that of status quo directing both parties to maintain status quo obtaining as on the date of the order i.e., 31-12-2008 with a further direction to the trial Court to dispose of the main suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months. The petitioner-defendant alleges that subsequently the respondent-plaintiff and her husband demolished a portion of the existing construction and also constructed a wall illegally and forcibly occupied a portion of the suit property in violation of the orders of the status quo granted by this Court during Sankranthi vacation. The petitioner-defendant also alleges that the respondent restricted the passage leading to the borewell used by the petitioner and his tenant, the State Bank of India who have been in occupation of the first floor of the suit property. He further alleges that the respondent and her husband are creating nuisance by damaging the portions of the property. He, therefore, filed the present contempt case seeking to punish the respondents. 4. The respondent filed a counter contending that by the time of hearing the revision petition in C.R.P.No.5910 of 2008 the petitioner had already completed the repairing and plastering work to the wall which divides both portions and the same was also brought to the notice of the Court. As seen from the order dated 31-12-2008, it was represented on behalf of the petitioner herein that on 18- 12-2008, the husband of the respondent broke open the lock of the premises on the ground floor and trespassed into the property and the borewell was blocked and thereby misused the order passed by the Courts below and that the petitioner also gave a police complaint to that effect. It is also seen from the said order that Sri M.V.S.Suresh Kumar learned counsel for the respondent contended that the repair has been completed and plastering of the wall has also been completed. On the basis of the submissions made by both sides, the order was passed on 31-12-2008 directing the parties to maintain status quo as obtaining on that date. The petitioner now alleges that subsequent to the said order, the respondent had indulged in the acts of destruction and construction and thereby violated the order of status quo. In support thereof, he seeks to rely upon certain photographs which show the date 16-02-2009. The said date appearing on the photographs is the date on which the photographs are taken and in the absence of any other material it cannot be concluded that the alleged acts of destruction or construction were done on that date or between the date of order i.e., 31-12-2008 and the date on which the photographs were taken i.e., 16-02-2009. 5. The petitioner next seeks to rely upon copy of the complaint dated 07-01-2009 said to have been given to Santhoshnagar P.S wherein he alleged that the respondent has violated the orders of status quo granted by this Court. In the said complaint, it is alleged that the respondent in the CRP and the plaintiff in the suit Dr.Syed Hussain Zaheer has taken law into his own hands and in spite of the subsisting status quo orders, he demolished a portion of the existing construction and constructed a wall illegally. Dr.Syed Hussain Zaheer is not plaintiff in the suit nor respondent in the CRP. It was Munawar Bhanu who is plaintiff in the suit and the respondent in the CRP and respondent in the present contempt case also. Of course, she is shown as wife of Dr.Syed Hussain Zaheer, but there is no allegation in the complaint dated 07-01-2009 got issued through counsel to the police that the respondent herein, the plaintiff, has committed any act in violation of the status quo order. On the other hand, it was reiterated in the said complaint that the acts mentioned therein have been done by Dr.Syed Hussain Zaheer and the request was made to the police to take action against the said Syed Hussain Zaheer. Thus, obviously, the alleged acts of violation of the status quo order were not committed on 16-02-2009, the date on which the photographs were taken or even prior thereto because the complaint was given to the police on 07-01-2009 itself alleging acts of violation, that too on the part of Syed Hussain Zaheer but not the respondent herein. Thus, on his own showing, even according to the petitioner, the alleged violation of the orders of this Court was not by the respondent, but by her husband. The respondent cannot, therefore, be punished for the alleged acts of her husband. Even otherwise, the order dated 31-12-2008 passed in the CRP would show that it was reported that the repairs were completed and plastering of the wall was also completed even by the date of hearing. 6. In the circumstances, it is held that the petitioner has failed to establish that any act in violation of the order of status quo granted by this Court on 31-12-2008 has been committed and that too by the respondent herein. The respondent is, therefore, held not liable to be proceeded against under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. 7. In the result, the contempt case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 22nd March 2011 Lrkm.