THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Contempt Case No.1444 of 2010 (Dated : 21-06-2011) Between: K.Amarender Reddy R/o Plot No.120, Road No.13, Banjara Hills, Hyd. …Petitioner A n d S.Radhika Reddy W/o S.Gopal Reddy Hyderabad. …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Contempt Case No.1444 of 2010 ORDER: This contempt case has been filed by the petitioner in C.R.P.No.3867 of 2010 complaining disobedience of the order dated 3.9.2010 passed therein. 2. Notice to the respondent came to be ordered on 7.10.2010. The respondent entered appearance and filed counter. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent violated the order of status quo dated 3.9.2010 passed in C.R.P.No.3867 of 2010. The respondent stated in the counter affidavit that she has not violated the status quo order and she has not taken up any further construction after passing of the status quo order. For better appreciation, I may refer para (8) of the counter, which reads as hereunder:- “ I respectfully submit that the present contempt application in the CRP has been filed for violating this Hon’ble Court’s Order dt.3.92010. We have not violated this Hon’ble Court’s order. It is pertinent to mention here that we are not undertaking any construction activity. Moreover, the suit has been filed by me praying for an injunction mainly aggrieved by interference of the Defendant while I was constructing a compound wall. In the said suit a status-quo order has been granted which means that both the parties have to maintain in relation to the existing compound wall. The defendant had traversed beyond the scope of the suit and filed an application for demolition of the structure existing in the site on the ground that I have violated the status quo order. If at all the defendant is aggrieved in any manner, a separate suit has to be filed agitating his grievance but cannot try to get a relief which is outside the scope of the suit.” 4. No material has been placed on record that the respondent has violated the status quo order granted on 3.9.2010. 5. When the contempt case came up for admission hearing, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. It indicates that the petitioner is not interested in pursuing the matter. 6. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed for non- prosecution. No costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.21-06-2011 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Contempt Case No.1444 of 2010 (Dated : 21-06-2011)