This is a contempt proceeding regarding disobedience of a High Court order. The Court dismissed the case as redundant because the alleged disobedience stemmed from a temporary injunction granted by a Civil Court to encroachers in a separate suit.
Contempt Case No.921 of 2009 is dismissed as redundant.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE
PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY
CONTEMPT CASE No.921 OF 2009
BETWEEN:
M.R. Muniratnam S/o. Late Rangaswamy Naidu and another
…. Petitioner
AND
1. Sri Mukesh Mkumar Meena, District Collector, Kurnool, Kurnool
2. Smt. Ch. Vijaya Lakhsmi,
3. Sri C.Rangarajan,
…. Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY
CONTEMPT CASE No.921 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:
This Contempt Case has been filed by the petitioners in Writ Petition No.23502 of 2007 complaining the disobedience of the order dated 05-07-2008.
2. Notice before admission has been ordered on 10-07-2009.
3. Respondent No.3 filed counter affidavit. It is stated in the
counter affidavit that the encroachers filed O.S. No.21 of 2009 on the
file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Adoni and obtained temporary injunction. Paragraph – 6 of the counter affidavit reads as under:
“6. I respectfully submit that the encroachers who have encroached the land in Sy. No.403/A2 and 467, have filed O.S.No.21/09 before the Honorable Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Adoni. In the said suit the District Collector, Kurnool and the Tahsildar, Adoniare shown as defendants 1 and 2. The said suit is for a perpetual injunction. Along with the suit the plaintiffs also filed an I.A.No.115/2009 under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 seeking for a temporary injunction. The Hon’ble Court by an order dated 2602-2009 passed the following order:
“Heard perused the petition/plaint averments and documents etc., and also an order in W.P.No.23502/07 on the file of Hon’ble High Court of A.P., filed by the Respondent Muniratham with regard to Sy.No.404/A and 404/B. Upon observing the same and the respondents are being the Government Agencies they are directed to maintain status-quo with regard to the possession and enjoyment over the petitioner schedule property till 24-03-2009.”
Thereafter, the order was extended from time to time.”
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
4. Since the encroachers approached the Civil Court and obtained temporary injunction, the respondents cannot be said to have disobeyed the orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.23502 of 2007.
5. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed as redundant.
_________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J November 05, 2009. KTL
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Contempt Petition stands dismissed given that encroachers obtained temporary injunction in a civil suit.
Whether the dismissal of the Contempt Case as redundant is justified.
M.R. Muniratnam
Sri Mukesh Mkumar Meena
Smt. Ch. Vijaya Lakhsmi
Sri C. Rangarajan
B. Seshasayana Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
