A contempt petition alleging violation of an interim status quo order by construction of a wall and Mulgi was closed on the respondent's undertaking to maintain status quo.
Contempt case closed on undertaking.
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,ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA
CONTEMPT CASE No.966 of 2010
IN
S.A.M.PNo.749 of 2010
IN
S.A.No.308 of 2010
Date: 18-11-2011
Between:
Smt.Kompella Padmavathi, W/o K.Srinivas, R/o Plot No.152, D.No.16-11-16/152, Sripuram colony, Malkakpet, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner
And
1.Burugubai Mangaiah, S/o late B.Mangaiah, R/o H.No.2-37, Dhoolapalli village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and 12 others
.. Respondents
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA
CONTEMPT CASE No.966 of 2010
IN
S.A.M.PNo.749 of 2010
IN
S.A.No.308 of 2010
ORDER:
This Contempt Case is filed by the petitioner to punish the 1st respondent herein under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Court Act for willful and deliberate violation of the interim order of this Court passed in S.A.M.P.No.749 of 2010 in S.A.No.308 of 2010 dated 28.04.2010.
By the aforesaid interim order dated 28.04.2010, this Court directed both the parties to maintain Status quo obtaining as on that date in respect of the property in question.
It is stated by the petitioner that the 1st respondent herein in violation of the aforesaid interim order has constructed a compound wall and Mulgi in the schedule property.
The 1st respondent has filed a counter-affidavit denying the allegation of the petitioner that he made constructions in the property in question by violating the aforesaid interim order of this Court. It is stated that he made construction of the Mulgi and the compound wall prior to the aforesaid interim order of this Court.
Learned Counsel for the 1st respondent submits that the 1st respondent has constructed the compound wall in order to protect the property only. However, he undertakes that the 1st respondent will not make any further constructions and he shall maintain Status quo as directed by this Court and that the 1st respondent will not use the Mulgi, which was already constructed in the property.
Recording the aforesaid statement of the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent, the Contempt Case is closed. No costs.
JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA
18.11.2011
Gsn
Smt.Kompella Padmavathi
Burugubai Mangaiah
N.V.Ramana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
