IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.C.No.1639 OF 2009 Between:- Geda Muneswara Rao …Petitioner A n d Geda Veera Venkata Satyanarayana …Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.C.No.1639 OF 2009 ORDER: This contempt case is filed under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act alleging violation of the orders dated 06-09-2008 in A.S.M.P.No.1324 of 2007 and A.S.M.P.No.1145 of 2008 in A.S.No.364 of 2007 wherein this Court ordered both parties to maintain status quo obtaining as on the date of the order with regard to the possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and also the topographical features thereof. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both parties. Perused the records. 3. The petitioner herein is the appellant in A.S.No.364 of 2007, which was filed against the judgment and decree dated 20-12-2006 in O.S.No.46 of 1991, on the file of the Principal District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru. The said suit was filed by the appellant/plaintiff for permanent injunction and the same was dismissed. The appellant filed A.S.M.P.No.1324 of 2007 for temporary injunction pending disposal of the appeal seeking to restrain the respondent/defendant from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. By interim order dated 09-06-2007, this Court granted ad interim injunction. Subsequently, the respondent/defendant filed A.S.M.P.No.1145 of 2008 for vacating the interim injunction. By order dated 06-09-2008, this Court after hearing both sides modified the earlier interim order dated 09-06-2007 directing both parties to maintain status quo obtaining as on the date of the said order with regard to possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and also the topographical features thereof. In the said order, it was observed that during pendency of the appeal, the appellant cannot be permitted to take undue advantage of the interim injunction granted in his favour, so as to alter the boundaries or by removing the survey stones and resorting to similar acts alleged by the respondent. It was further observed that similarly the respondent/ defendant cannot also be allowed to cause any obstruction to flow of water to the appellants’ land or cut the trees on the kattavas belonging to the appellant. Accordingly, status quo was ordered to be maintained. 4. The petitioner/appellant alleges that in violation of the above order of status quo, the respondent/defendant has cut the trees on the kattavas belonging to the appellant. In support thereof, he filed certain photographs of fallen trees and the tree trunks. The respondent filed counter denying that he has cut the trees in violation of the orders of status quo passed by this Court. According to him, he cut the trees in the lands belonging to him and situate in Sy.Nos.23 and 19, which are allotted to him in the partition. It is also stated in the counter filed by the respondent that he made an application to the Mandal Surveyor to fix the boundaries and after survey, a certificate was issued by Tahasildar on 25-09- 2009 wherein it is stated that the trees pertain to R.S.Nos.23 and 29. The respondent filed the said certificate issued by the Tahasildar along with counter. The affidavit filed in support of the petition is bereft of any details as to the location of the trees with reference to survey numbers, which are alleged to have been cut. The photographs which are the only documents filed by the petitioner do not establish his allegation that the cut trees which are shown therein are situate in the land of petitioner or that they were cut by the respondent in violation of the orders of status quo. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it is stated that the petitioner gave a complaint to the Station House Officer, Polavaram, but no action has been taken by the police on the ground that the appeal is pending before this Court. Pendency of the appeal does not come in the way of the police investigating into the complaint alleging commission of cognizable offence. The material placed on record does not establish the allegation of the petitioner that the orders of status quo passed by this Court have been violated by the respondent. 5. In the result, the contempt case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Dated 01st April, 2010 Lrkm.