*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO +CONTEMPT CASE No.582 OF 2011 IN SECOND APPEAL M.P. No.3176 OF 2010 IN SECOND APPEAL No.1456 OF 2010. %Dated 10-10-2011. # 1. Smt. Nawab Sultana, W/o.M.A. Hameed, Aged 57 years, Occ. Business, Fire Wood Shop, 13-1-80 (Part), Razdharkhanpet, Mangalhat, Hyderabad. 2. M.A. Hameed, S/o.Late M.A.Gafoor, Aged 65 years, Retired, R/o.9-4-77/A/128, Alhasnath Colony, Toli Chowki, Hyderabad. - - - Petitioners. VERSUS $ 1. Sri Babu Naik Pujari, Bailiff, Central Nazarath Section, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. 2. Sri M. Chandrasekhar Goud, S/o. Late S. Goud, 53 Years, Business, R/o.13-1-80, Razdarkhanpet, Mangalhat, Hyderabad. - - - Respondents. ! Counsel for Petitioners : Sri M. Karuna Sagar. ^Counsel for Respondent No.1 : Smt. Kalpana Ekbote. ^Counsel for Respondent No.2 : Sri P. Venugopal. < GIST : > HEAD NOTE : ? Cases referred : --- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.582 OF 2011 IN SECOND APPEAL M.P. No.3176 OF 2010 IN SECOND APPEAL No.1456 OF 2010. Between: Smt. Nawab Sultana and another. - - - Petitioners- Respondents. V/s. Babu Naik Pujari and another. - - - Respondents/Petitioner/ Appellant Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri M. Karuna Sagar. Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Smt. Kalpana Ekbote. Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Sri P. Venugopal. The Court made the following : (Order follows next page). THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.582 OF 2011 IN SECOND APPEAL M.P. No.3176 OF 2010 IN SECOND APPEAL No.1456 of 2010. O R D E R : This Contempt Case is filed by the Petitioners against the Respondents seeking to punish them according to law for willfully disobeying the order dated 24-12-2010, passed in S.A. M.P. No.3176 of 2010 in Second Appeal No.1456 of 2010 by the learned single Judge of this Court. 2. Heard Sri M. Karuna Sagar, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Smt. Kalpana Ekbote, learned counsel appearing for the first Respondent-Bailiff and Sri P. Venugopal, learned counsel appearing for the second Respondent. 3. The background facts relevant for considering the Contempt Case are these : The second respondent instituted a suit for permanent injunction in respect of the vacant site of an extent of 19.44 Sq. yards and the suit i.e. Original Suit No.1650 of 2007 was tried and disposed by the learned IX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (For short, ‘the learned Junior Civil Judge’). The learned Junior Civil Judge decreed the suit granting the permanent injunction as prayed for. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgement, the Petitioners herein who were the Defendants in the said Suit preferred Appeal Suit No.139 of 2008 on the file of X Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad (For short, ‘the learned Additional Chief Judge’). The learned Additional Chief Judge by his judgement and decree dated 19-10-2010, reversed the finding of the trial Court and allowed the Appeal. Against the said decree and judgement, the second Respondent preferred Second Appeal No.1456 of 2010 and S.A. M.P. No.3176 of 2010 therein seeking temporary injunction, pending disposal of the Second Appeal, against the Petitioners. The learned single Judge, however, passed an order on 24-10-2010 directing both the parties to maintain status- quo obtaining as on that date. 4. Earlier to this litigation there were proceedings under the Rent Control Act initiated by the second respondent against the Petitioners in respect of the mulgi to which the Petitioners are tenants and the learned II Additional Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad (For short, ‘the learned Additional Rent Controller’) directed eviction of the Petitioners in R.C. No.92 of 2005 and ultimately it became final when the Civil Revision Petition No.2542 of 2009 filed before this Court by the Petitioners was dismissed. Thereafter, on an application made by the second Respondent in R.C. No.92 of 2005, the learned Additional Rent Controller issued an order directing to evict the Petitioners from the scheduled mentioned mulgi and when the first respondent-Bailiff was obstructed by the Petitioners and further on an application being made by the second Respondent, the learned Additional Rent Controller directed the concerned Police to give necessary assistance to the first Respondent-Bailiff in executing the order of the Court and ultimately the first Respondent-Bailiff with the aid of police evicted the petitioners from the scheduled mentioned mulgi in the Rent Control Case No.92 of 2005. 5. However, the grievance of the Petitioners is that the second Petitioner herein purchased an extent of 41.66 Sq. yards of the land adjacent to the scheduled mentioned mulgi from the second respondent and the first Respondent-Bailiff while executing the order of the learned Additional Rent Controller, connived with the second respondent evicted the Petitioners from the mulgi and also from the open land admeasuring 19.44 Sq. yards in respect of which the present Second Appeal is pending. Therefore, the Petitioners got filed the present Contempt Case alleging violation of the order dated 24-10-2010, passed in S.A. M.P. No.3176 of 2010 in S.A. No.1456 of 2010 by the learned single Judge. 6. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the second Respondent, there was no order specifically mentioning that the Petitioners are in possession of the scheduled mentioned property when the status-quo order was passed by the learned single Judge. 7. The suit initially filed by the second respondent was decreed and the said decree was reversed in the Appeal by the appellate Court against which the present Second Appeal is filed by the second Respondent. As on the date of disposal of the Appeal by the Appellate Court there was no injunction in favour of the Petitioners and while passing the status-quo order also the learned single Judge did not specify about the possession in relation to the property in dispute. In so far as the first Respondent-Bailiff is concerned, his contention is that he has no knowledge about the status-quo order passed by the learned single Judge in the Second Appeal and that he executed the warrant only as per the directions of the learned Additional Rent Controller with the aid of police. 8. In any event, when there is no finding of any Court that the second Respondent is in possession of the property in dispute and in the absence of any mention made by the learned single Judge about the possession of the Petitioners in respect of the scheduled mentioned property, while passing the order directing ‘status-quo”, I do not think that there is any violation of the order passed by the learned single Judge for which any action for Contempt of the order can be initiated against the Respondents. The Petitioners failed to demonstrate that they are in possession of the property as on the date of the order passed by the learned single Judge nor there was any finding recorded by the learned single Judge that the Petitioners were in possession of the property on the date of passing of the order allegedly violated. For the foregoing reasons, absolutely I see no merits in the Contempt Case and it cannot be said that any order of this Court is flouted by the Respondents. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO. Date.10-10-2011 Note: Mark L.R. Copy. B/o.DSH. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO 186 CONTEMPT CASE No.582 OF 2011 IN S.A. M.P. No.3176 of 2010 IN S.A. No.1456 of 2010 October, 10, 2011 DSH