The Court dismissed a contempt petition alleging violation of an interim order regarding property eviction. It held that disputed factual questions could not be examined in contempt proceedings and the petitioners could pursue their rights in the pending writ petition.
no costs, contempt case closed
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.
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI
CONTEMPT CASE No. 1334 OF 2012
Dated: 04.01.2013
Between: Chatla Chandrasekhar and 5 others … Petitioners AND Maheswar Reddy and another ... Respondents
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI
CONTEMPT CASE No.1334 of 2012
ORDER:
This contempt case is filed alleging violation of an interim order passed by this Court on 02.03.2012 in W.P.M.P.No.7287 of 2012 in W.P.No.5755 of 2012, which reads as under:
“Notice.
Interim direction as prayed for provided the House site pattas in favour of the petitioners are subsisting as of today.”
In the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent – Tahsildar, Uravakonda Mandal, Anantapur District, it is stated that the eviction was carried out on 25.02.2012 itself and in fact, the writ petition was filed thereafter on 29.02.2012 and therefore, the allegations in the contempt case are unfounded.
Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and having regard to the stand taken in the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, it appears to this Court that the matter involves various disputed questions of fact, which cannot be gone into in exercise of the contempt jurisdiction. Moreover, the writ petition is still pending and therefore, it is open to the petitioners to pursue their rights in respect of the property in question.
Accordingly, leaving it open to the writ petitioners to seek appropriate directions in the writ petition, if so advised, the Contempt Case is closed. No costs.
______________ G.ROHINI, J 04th January, 2013. Ivd/Srp
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the allegations of violation of an interim order in a contempt case are maintainable when the eviction allegedly occurred before the filing of the writ petition.
Chatla Chandrasekhar and 5 others
Maheswar Reddy and another
G. Rohini
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
