IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.C.No.1783 OF 2010 Between: Seetha Veeraswamy …Petitioner A n d Vemuru Narayana Reddy …Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.C.No.1783 OF 2010 ORDER: This contempt case is filed alleging that the respondent has violated the interim order dated 11.11.2005 in S.A.M.P.No.2727 of 2005 in S.A.No.1357 of 2005, wherein both parties were directed to maintain status quo as on that date till further orders. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it is alleged that the petitioner/appellant has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and that on 10.06.2010, the respondents had cut the trees ignoring the objection by the petitioner/appellant and that he gave a complaint on 16.06.2010 to the police and again on 06.08.2010, the respondent came to the land and started ploughing the same. The respondent filed a counter contending that they are in possession of the schedule land and the petitioner himself made attempts to cultivate the suit lands though he is not in possession and the petitioner himself violated the orders of status quo passed by this Court. The respondent further contended that the petitioner filed another suit O.S.No.400 of 2001 before the Junior Civil Judge, Gudur in respect of the same land and the said suit was dismissed on 22.02.2010. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit stating that the subject matter of the two suits is distinct and separate. 3. As seen from the copy of the judgment filed by the respondent, the said suit was also filed for permanent injunction in respect of an extent of Ac.3-90 cents in Sy.No.193/B1. The present second appeal is, however, is in respect of Ac.3-34 cents in Sy.No.193/B4. Be that as it may, since the second appeal filed by the petitioner herein is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court resulting in dismissal of the suit filed by the petitioner on the ground that he failed to establish his possession and enjoyment of the suit land and his entitlement for the relief of injunction, the question of violation of the order of status quo by the respondents does not arise. 4. In the result, the contempt case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 07th September, 2011 Lrkm