Dismissed

Smt. R.Radha v. K. Venkat Reddy S/o K. Penta Reddy

Telangana HC13 Oct 2009CC/368/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging violation of a status quo order. The court examined attached photographs and a Commissioner's report which indicated constructions were completed prior to the order. Finding no convincing evidence of post-order construction, the contempt case was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case dismissed; no punishment awarded to the first respondent.

Smt. R.Radha Vs K. Venkat Reddy S/o K. Penta Reddy — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶2

CONTEMPT CASE NO.368 OF 2009

¶3

13^TH OCTOBER, 2009

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

SMT.R.RADHA .. PETTIONER AND

¶6

K.VENKAT REDDY AND OTHS .. RESPONDENTS

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶8

CONTEMPT CASE NO.368 OF 2009

¶9

O R D E R:

¶10

This Contempt Case has been filed complaining the disobedience of the order-dated 12.6.2008 passed in WPMP.No.15433 of 2008 in W.P.No.11968 of 2008.

¶11

Notice before admission came to be ordered on 26.3.2009. R1 entered appearance through a counsel. On 18.8.2009 the petitioner filed C.A.No.547 of 2009 seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to ascertain whether the contemnor completed the construction of 2^nd and 3^rd floor after status-quo order dated 11.6.2008 passed in WPMP.No.15433 of 2008 in W.P.No.11968 of 2008. The said application came to be allowed appointing Ms.R.Dushyantala, as Advocate Commissioner to inspect the premises in question. The Advocate Commissioner inspected the premises and filed a report. The petitioner filed objections to the Commissioner’s report.

¶12

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for 1^st respondent.

¶13

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that 1^st respondent herein proceeded with the constructions after the order of status quo and therefore he is liable to be punished under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act.

¶14

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for 1^st respondent submits

¶15

that R1 stopped the constructions as on the date of status quo order and no further constructions have been taken up after the status quo order.

¶16

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by referring to certain photographs made an effort to convince the court that 1^st respondent proceeded with the constructions after the status quo order is passed by this Court.

¶17

What is placed on record is photostat copies of photographs and three third party affidavits. The photographs do not indicate the date on which they have been taken. Ofcourse, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by relying on the cover issued by Jeevana Digital Studio, Nacharam, Hyderabad contends that the photographs placed on record refer to prior to the status-quo order. Nothing can be inferred from the said photostat copies of the photographs of the constructions, that they relate to the constructions made prior to the status quo order. The Commissioner’s report placed on record indicates that 1^st respondent completed the constructions much prior to the date of inspection.

¶18

In that view of the matter, I find that the petitioner failed to place on record any convincing material to show that the 1^st respondent proceeded with the constructions after the status quo order of this Court.

¶19

Accordingly, this Contempt Case is dismissed.

¶20

13^th October, 2009. ( B.Seshasayana Reddy,J ) tnb

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶22

CONTEMPT CASE NO.368 OF 2009

¶23

13^TH OCTOBER, 2009

Smt. R.Radha v. K. Venkat Reddy S/o K. Penta Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. R.Radha v. K. Venkat Reddy S/o K. Penta Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N. Ravi Kumar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Md. Omer Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Laxminarayana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Thalla Srinivas Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Yesaboina Santosh, Vs The State of A.P.

Ababala Anjaneyamurthy, Vs Sho, - Narasapur Town Police Station