Dismissed

Chalasani Venkateshwar Rao v. Smt Potluri Padamavathi

Karnataka HC29 Nov 2022CCC/1618/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dropped contempt proceedings filed by a complainant against an accused for alleged willful disobedience of an interim order maintaining status-quo between parties in a probate case.

What did the court decide?

Contempt proceedings were dropped; parties advised to file fresh contempt petition in case of future violation of status-quo order.

Chalasani Venkateshwar Rao Vs Smt Potluri… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

¶7

C.C.C. No.1618/2019 (CIVIL)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

CHALASANI VENKATESHWAR RAO AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O. LATE CHALASANI BASAVAPURNAIAH, RESIDING AT NO.5, CHAITHANAYA OAK VILLE, HAGADUR ROAD, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU – 560 066.

¶10

... COMPLAINANT

¶11

(BY SRI SUHAS S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI S. GANESH SHENOY, ADVOCATE (NOC))

¶12

AND:

¶13

SMT. POTLURI PADAMAVATHI AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, D/O. LATE CHALASANI BASAVAPURNAIAH, RESIDING AT NO.319, INNER CIRCLE, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU – 560 066. ... ACCUSED

¶14

(BY SRI A. MAHESH CHOWDHARY, ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, BY THE COMPLAINANT, WHEREIN HE PRAYS THAT THE HON’BLE COURT BE PLEASED TO INITIATE CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED

¶16

¶17

AND PUNISH THEM AS THEY HAVE WILLFULLY DISOBEYED THE ORDER DATED 15.02.2019 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN PROBATE C.P.NO.15/2017.

¶18

THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, B.VEERAPPA J ., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The present contempt petition is filed by the complainant to take action against the accused under the provisions of Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt

¶21

of Courts Act for willful disobedience of the interim order dated 15.02.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge made in Prob.CP No.15/2017 and connected matters, wherein the learned Single Judge directed both the parties to maintain status-quo relating to the properties in question until further orders and the matter is still pending consideration before the learned Single Judge.

¶22

¶23

In response to the notice, the accused filed affidavit dated 29.11.2022 and specifically stated at paragraph Nos.4 to 6 as under:

¶24

“4. The Complainant upon learning of the order dated 07.02.2019 approached this Hon’ble High Court and sought for a modification of the interim order. The Learned Single Judge after hearing both the parties was, please to pass an order dated 15.02.2019 modifying the order dated 07.02.2019 and inter alia directed parties to the lis to maintain status quo.

¶25

I state that it is in this manner the order dated 15.02.2019 came into force. Since then, the nature of the property in question as mentioned in paragraph no.4 of the petition remains intact and no construction or development activities have taken place till date and the land is vacant. A copy of the photographs has been enclosed as Annexure R2 for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.

¶26

¶27

I state with deep respect that I have not violated the order dated 15.02.2019 passed by this Hon’ble High Court which directed parties to maintain status quo and I would continue to do so.”

¶28

Learned counsel for the complainant

¶29

submits that if contempt petition is closed, the accused would further violate the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶30

It is not in dispute that the learned Single

¶31

Judge directed the parties to maintain status-quo. Since the order to maintain status-quo is still existing, the present contempt petition would not survive for consideration.

¶32

In view of the above, we pass the

following:

ORDER

The contempt proceedings are hereby dropped. If any of the parties violate the order of status-quo it is needless to observe that either of the parties can approach this Court by filing a fresh contempt petition in accordance with law.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

MBM

Chalasani Venkateshwar Rao v. Smt Potluri Padamavathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chalasani Venkateshwar Rao v. Smt Potluri Padamavathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. S. Kuttaiah @ Harish @ Ravikumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Murudegowda @ Murudappa @Gowda Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Padmavathi Vs Smt Sandhyarani S

Smt Usha K Raju Vs Mr Srinivas

Shilpa. S Vs Sri. Manoj Kumar

Shri. Rafiq Ahmed Vs B.R. Manjunath