THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE NO.368 OF 2009 13TH OCTOBER, 2009 BETWEEN: SMT.R.RADHA .. PETTIONER AND K.VENKAT REDDY AND OTHS .. RESPONDENTS THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE NO.368 OF 2009 O R D E R: This Contempt Case has been filed complaining the disobedience of the order-dated 12.6.2008 passed in WPMP.No.15433 of 2008 in W.P.No.11968 of 2008. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 26.3.2009. R1 entered appearance through a counsel. On 18.8.2009 the petitioner filed C.A.No.547 of 2009 seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to ascertain whether the contemnor completed the construction of 2nd and 3rd floor after status-quo order dated 11.6.2008 passed in WPMP.No.15433 of 2008 in W.P.No.11968 of 2008. The said application came to be allowed appointing Ms.R.Dushyantala, as Advocate Commissioner to inspect the premises in question. The Advocate Commissioner inspected the premises and filed a report. The petitioner filed objections to the Commissioner’s report. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for 1st respondent. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that 1st respondent herein proceeded with the constructions after the order of status quo and therefore he is liable to be punished under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for 1st respondent submits that R1 stopped the constructions as on the date of status quo order and no further constructions have been taken up after the status quo order. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by referring to certain photographs made an effort to convince the court that 1st respondent proceeded with the constructions after the status quo order is passed by this Court. What is placed on record is photostat copies of photographs and three third party affidavits. The photographs do not indicate the date on which they have been taken. Ofcourse, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by relying on the cover issued by Jeevana Digital Studio, Nacharam, Hyderabad contends that the photographs placed on record refer to prior to the status-quo order. Nothing can be inferred from the said photostat copies of the photographs of the constructions, that they relate to the constructions made prior to the status quo order. The Commissioner’s report placed on record indicates that 1st respondent completed the constructions much prior to the date of inspection. In that view of the matter, I find that the petitioner failed to place on record any convincing material to show that the 1st respondent proceeded with the constructions after the status quo order of this Court. Accordingly, this Contempt Case is dismissed. 13th October, 2009. ( B.Seshasayana Reddy,J ) tnb THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE NO.368 OF 2009 13TH OCTOBER, 2009