HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.938 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: The petitioners filed O.S. No.82 of 1998 in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Punganur, against the respondents for the relief of declaration of title, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction. The trial Court dismissed the suit. In A.S. No.3 of 2004 filed by the respondents, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Punganur reversed the decree. Against the said decree, S.A. No.460 of 2008 is filed. 2. In SAMP No.1084 of 2008, this Court passed an interim order directing the respondents not to change the physical features of the suit schedule property and the same was extended by this Court on 14-09-2008, until further orders. 3. This Contempt Case is filed alleging that the respondents have dug bore-wells, constructed houses and altered the nature of the suit schedule property. It is alleged that the orders of temporary injunction were in force throughout the proceedings and despite the same, the respondents have altered the features of the land. 4. Different respondents have filed separate counter affidavits. They virtually denied the allegation of the petitioners. It is stated that in the place of the existing huts, the pacca houses sanctioned by the Government under a Scheme have been constructed in the year 2007 itself. So far as the use of bore-wells is concerned, it is stated that one such well became defunct and the respondents have stopped using other bore-wells soon after they came to know about the interim orders passed by this Court. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 6. It is, no doubt true that this Court passed an interim order directing the respondents not to alter the nature of the property. Except stating that the respondents have changed the nature of the property, the petitioner failed to furnish the particulars. The assertion of the respondents that the houses were constructed under a Government Scheme much before the interim order was passed, stands unrebutted. The petitioner must prove the case almost beyond any pale of doubt to convince the Court for punishing the respondents. This Court is not inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner. The statement on behalf of the respondents that they would abide by the interim orders passed by this Court is taken on record. 7. The Contempt Case is, accordingly, closed. The warrant issued against the respondents 2, 3,4 and 6 is recalled. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J November 01, 2011. KTL