P. Narayana Reddy v. Sri P.Bapu Reddy, Deputy Superintending of Police

Telangana HC19 Jan 2010CC/210/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that since the respondents had implemented the interim order by providing police protection, nothing survived for adjudication, and the contempt case was closed while directing continued protection for the duration of the injunction.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case closed; direction to police to continue providing protection to the petitioner.

P. Narayana Reddy Vs Sri P.Bapu Reddy, Deputy… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU CONTEMPT CASE No.210 OF 2009

¶2

DATED: 19-01-2010

¶3

Between:

¶4

P.Narayana Reddy.

¶5

..... PETITIONER

¶6

AND

¶7

P.Bapu Reddy & 2 others.

¶8

.....RESPONDENTS

¶9

ORDER

¶10

This Contempt Case has been filed complaining wilful disobedience on the part of the respondents in

¶11

implementing the order, dated 12-12-2008, in W.P.M.P.No.35452 of 2008 in W.P.No.27062 of 2008, whereunder the respondents 1 and 2 were directed to provide protection to the petitioner’s possession of the land in respect of which the petitioner obtained perpetual injunction in his favour under the judgment and decree, dated 11-02-2008, passed in O.S.No.18 of 2003 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Shadnagar until further orders.

¶12

2. There is no necessity of going into all the details. It is suffice to notice the averments made in paragraph No.6 of the counter which reads as under:

¶13

“It is respectfully submitted that pursuant to the interim orders of the Hon’ble High Court dated

¶14

12-12-2008, the Sub Inspector of Police, Shadnagar police station has deputed the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police Sri Ravinder Reddy and staff on 12-01-2009 to provide police protection to the petitioner’s land in Sy.No.473 shown as 473/1 extent Ac.3.00 situated at Chinchode village of Farooqnagar mandal, Mahboobnagar District. Accordingly the respondent has provided police protection to the petitioner’s land. It is submitted that in this connection the 3^rd respondent has also given an undertaking dated 12-01-2009 to the Sub Inspector of police, Shadnagar, Mahaboobnagar District stating that she will not interfere in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s land. It is submitted that the respondents-police have already implemented the interim orders of the Hon’ble High Court, dated 12-12-2008, by providing police protection

¶15

to the petitioner”.

¶16

3. In view of the same, nothing survives in the Contempt Case for further adjudication. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. However, police shall provide protection to the petitioner so long as the order of injunction is in his favour.

¶17

________________ C.V.RAMULU,J 19^th January, 2010 Tsy

P. Narayana Reddy v. Sri P.Bapu Reddy, Deputy Superintending of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Narayana Reddy v. Sri P.Bapu Reddy, Deputy Superintending of Police

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

P.Bharati, Vs The M.D.

R.Venkataramana, Vs The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Addl. Labour Court

Sub-Divisional Officer, Telecommunications, Vs C. Pratap Reddy (Dismissed)

Electro Homeopathic Medical Association of A.P. rep. by its Vs Indian Medical Council rep. by its Secretary

Smt.Vlbt Sundari Vs The District Educational Officer

Apsrtc Warangal Vs M.Ramulu and Another