In a contempt petition alleging violation of a status quo order, the High Court held that since the order did not restrict cultivation and the main appeal was pending, the matter was not fit for contempt. The petition was dismissed.
Contempt Case dismissed with no costs.
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, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI
CONTEMPT CASE No. 253 OF 2009
Between: Somesula Pedda Subbaiah (died) Somesula Subbanna AND
..... PETITIONER
Somesula Venkata Subbamma
.....RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent:
The Court made the following :
THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CONTEMPT CASE No. 253 OF 2009
O R D E R :
This contempt case is filed alleging violation of the order of status quo dated 04.01.2006 granted by this Court in S.A.M.P.No.3185 of 2005 in S.A.No.1571 of 2005. The petitioner herein is the appellant in the second appeal. The second appeal arose out of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.364 of 1996 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Badvel. The said suit was preferred by the respondent herein seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant (Appellant in S.A.No.1571 of 2005) from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit land and the suit was decreed with costs. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant preferred A.S.No.13 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Badvel and the same was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 29.08.2005. Challenging the same, the defendant preferred the main S.A No.1571 of 2005. This Court by order dated 04.01.2006 directed that pending further orders, status quo obtaining as on that day as to the nature and possession of the suit schedule property, shall be maintained for a period of four weeks from that day.
It is alleged in the affidavit filed in support of the contempt case that the petitioner/Appellant was in joint possession of the suit property and the respondent was trying to oust him from the possession and the respondent was also attempting to cultivate 50% of the extent of the suit land despite the fact that there was order of status quo. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent denying the
allegations and stating that she has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit lands and both the trial Court and the appellate Courts recorded a finding in her favour. The other allegations made by the petitioner have been denied and it is stated that every year she is cultivating the land by raising crops and the same has been recorded in the revenue records.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material available on record and particularly keeping in view that the order alleged to be violated is only an order of status quo and that there is no positive direction restraining any of the parties from cultivating the land in question, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit matter to take cognizance under the Contempt of Courts Act. At any rate, since the second appeal is pending before this Court, the respective rights/claims made by the parties have to be decided in the main second appeal and it is not necessary for this Court to express any opinion with regard to the rival claims at this stage.
Accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed. No costs.
_____________ Date: 23.03.2010 G. ROHINI, J.
Ivd
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the alleged violation of an interim order of status quo attracts contempt proceedings.
Whether the High Court must decide rival property claims in a contempt petition when the main appeal is pending.
Whether an order directing maintenance of status quo is sufficient to attract cognizance under the Contempt of Courts Act if it does not restrict cultivation.
Somesula Pedda Subbaiah (died) Somesula Subbanna
Somesula Venkata Subbamma
G. ROHINI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
