Dismissed

Pilla Ramachandra Murthy, v. Ravada Appa Rao

Telangana HC12 Aug 2016CC/214/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt case alleging willful disobedience of an order restraining alienation of land, the Court closed the proceedings after respondents admitted alienation but filed a cancellation suit. The suit has a status quo interim order. The Court did not proceed with the case and granted liberty to file a fresh petition if the suit fails.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case closed; liberty given to petitioners to file a fresh contempt case if the cancellation suit is not pursued or fails.

Pilla Ramachandra Murthy, Vs Ravada Appa Rao — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy

¶2

Contempt Case No.214 of 2015

¶3

Date: 12.08.2016

¶4

Between: Pilla Ramachandra Murthy and 9 others

¶5

and Ravada Appa Rao and another .. Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Mr.N.Siva Reddy Counsel for the respondents: Mr.P.Lakshma Reddy

¶6

The Court made the following:

¶7

Order :

¶8

This Contempt Case is filed alleging willful disobedience of Order, dated 10-08-2013, in

¶9

WP.No.24079 of 2013, by the respondents.

¶10

By the aforementioned order, this Court has restrained the respondents herein from alienating the land admeasuring Acs.3-56 cents in R.S.Nos.418/10 to 418/21 of Pedamushidivada Village, Parawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

¶11

The petitioners alleged that in spite of the said order, the respondents have alienated the aforesaid properties to third parties.

¶12

The respondents filed a counter-affidavit wherein they have admitted such alienation. However, they have pleaded ignorance of the order of this Court.

¶13

During the hearing of this Contempt Case on several occasions in the past, the respondents have undertaken to initiate measures for cancellation of the sale deeds. Accordingly, they have filed OS.No.15 of 2016 in the Court of the X Additional Civil Judge, Anakapalli, for cancellation of the sale deeds.

¶14

The learned Counsel for the petitioners has not disputed that the said civil suit is pending.

¶15

Mr.P.Lakshma Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondents, submitted that in the said suit, an interim order of status quo was granted; that the said order is being extended from time to time; and that the same is in force till 01.09.2016.

¶16

On 15-07-2016, the learned Counsel for the respondents has informed that respondent No.3 has died. Hence, the Contempt Case had already been abated against him.

¶17

In the light of the above facts, since the respondents have initiated measures for undoing the wrong committed by them, I am not inclined to proceed with the Contempt Case further at this stage. However, liberty is given to the petitioners to file a fresh Contempt Case, in the event the respondents do not pursue the suit and fail to secure the decree for cancellation of sale deeds.

¶18

The Contempt Case is, accordingly, closed.

¶19

______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J)

¶20

Dt: 12^th August, 2016 lur

Pilla Ramachandra Murthy, v. Ravada Appa Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pilla Ramachandra Murthy, v. Ravada Appa Rao

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

Odisela Lakshmi Vs Prasadula Gunna , Ramani

Smt.Kalla Varalakshmi Vs Kalla Sankara Rao

Dwarampudi Ramireddy, Vs Lankapalli Satyanarayana

Yenamala Suryanarayana Reddy Vs Pilli Suryanarayana Reddy

Smt.Atmakuri Yesodha Vs Smt.Kolluru Manimala

Potharlanka Sudheer Kumar, Vs B. Vinoda Kumar