Dismissed

M.Ganapathi , M.Venkata Ratnam v. Sri Daya Sagar

Telangana HC11 Dec 2015CC/223/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt case alleging violation of an interim stay order, the court dismissed the petition. Finding that constructions were completed by prior order in alternate June 2014, it held the petitioner failed to prove subsequent violation since the allegedly completed works preceded the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case dismissed; no costs awarded; miscellaneous petitions closed.

M.Ganapathi , M.Venkata Ratnam Vs Sri Daya… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶2

C.C.No.223 of 2015

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Contempt Case is filed alleging violation by 1^st respondent herein of the order dt.10-11-2014 in W.P.No.30889 of 2014.

¶5

2. Petitioner had filed W.P.No.30889 of 2014 alleging that respondent Nos.2 and 3, who have been impleaded subsequently in this Contempt Case, were making constructions unauthorizedly in the subject property and she sought a direction to 1^st respondent to remove the same.

¶6

3. By order dt.10-11-2014, this Court issued notices to the respondents in the Writ Petition directed the matter to be listed after ten days and “in the meantime” directed respondent Nos.2 and 3 not to make any further constructions in the subject property.

¶7

4. Alleging that 1^st respondent herein is not ensuring compliance with the above order, this Contempt Case is filed.

¶8

5. However, in the affidavit filed in support of this contempt case, it is no where stated that in the ten day period between the date of passing order and its next listing, any constructions were made by respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶9

6. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 have filed before me copy of the order dt.10-06-2014 in I.A.No.873 of 2013 in O.S.No.20 of 2003 of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupathi, wherein a finding has been recorded while dismissing an injunction application filed by the petitioner that constructions had already been completed even by that date by respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein.

¶10

7. Having regard to the said facts, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has not established that respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein with the collusion of 1^st respondent, had violated the order passed by this Court on 10-11-2014 since prima facie it appears that the constructions alleged to have been made by respondent Nos.2 and 3 were completed even by June 2014.

¶11

8. Therefore, the Contempt Case is devoid of any merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

¶12

9. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶13

__________________________________ JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO Date: 11-12-2015 kvr

M.Ganapathi , M.Venkata Ratnam v. Sri Daya Sagar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Ganapathi , M.Venkata Ratnam v. Sri Daya Sagar

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

M/s. Shambhavi Industries, Vs The State of Teiangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Smt. K. Sunitha, Vs Assistant Divisional Engineer

Miss Sochinapalli Supriya, Vs The Convener

Manthu Basvaiah Vs Kanuganti Komuraiah

Kaparothu Satyanarayana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Ravirala Padma Vs The Telangana State Central Power Distribution Company