IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD , THE DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CONTEMPT CASE No.1414 of 2009 (Contempt Case U/s. 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act to punish the Respondents herein for violating, disobeying the Order of the High Court dated 04.04.2008 in ASMP.No.2200 of 2007 in AS.No.3635 of 2004) BETWEEN: Nalluri Venugopala Krishna and another. ... PETITIONERS AND Nalluri Rajyam and others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. SIVA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: MR. M.S.N. PRASAD The Court made the following: ORDER: The respondents in A.S.No.3635 of 2004 have filed this contempt case alleging that in spite of orders of this Court in ASMP.No.2200 of 2007 dated 04.04.2008, the appellants (who are respondents herein) have alienated some of the plaint schedule properties. 2. The contempt petitioners have mentioned in the accompanying affidavit that the respondents have sold item 1 of plaint schedule under registered sale deed dated 19.02.2007 and another item 12 under registered sale deed dated 19.02.2007. Hence, alleging deliberate violation of the orders of this Court, the present contempt case is filed. 3. The respondents have filed counter accepting the alienation but justified the same on the ground that due to financial crisis and struggle for survival they were forced to sell some of the items and it is asserted that even as per the decree of the trial Court, the respondents are entitled to 1/3rd share and the portion, which are sold are very much within the share, which the respondents will be entitled to even as per the decree of the trial Court. It is also asserted that the respondents had no intention to violate the orders nor any intention to part with the family properties but on account of struggle for livelihood they had no other option. 4. As the order of restraint was passed on 04.04.2008, the aforesaid two items 1 and 12 are sold prior to restraint orders of this Court dated 04.04.2008. One more item of 67 cents from out of item 11, is alleged to have been sold by the respondents under sale deed dated 15.12.2008, which alone is subsequent to the orders of this Court, referred to above. Technically, therefore, the violation of order is established. However, keeping in view the fact that the respondents alienated the aforesaid item of the suit schedule property but well within their share of 1/3rd entitlement even as per the trial Court’s decree and the circumstances pleaded on account of dire necessity have to be taken into consideration deserving a lenient view in the matter. I am, therefore, not inclined to proceed further in the matter and even otherwise, A.S.No.3635 of 2004 has been allowed by a separate order today. In the totality of the circumstances, this contempt case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J December , 2010 DSK