Disposed

G.S.Mallikarjun v. Smt Koka Radha Devi

Telangana HC19 Nov 2021CC/1211/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition for leave to file a contempt case was dismissed. The Court held that due to COVID-19 court closures and the respondent's transfer, the delay in disposing a matter could not be termed willful disobedience. Consequently, both the leave application and the contempt petition were disposed of without penalty.

What did the court decide?

Leave application and contempt petition disposed of; further proceedings in the contempt case closed without costs.

G.S.Mallikarjun Vs Smt Koka Radha Devi — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA}

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY ,THE NINETEENTH^{DAY OF NOVEIVBER} TWO THOUSAND^ANDTWENTYONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER}

¶6

I.A. No.1 0F 2021

¶7

IN/AND

¶8

CONTEM PT CASE^{NO: 1211oF 2021}

¶9

(Contempt Case Under Section^{10 to 12 of Contemptof Courts Act to} punish the Respondent^{herein for, willfully violating,the order of the High} Court dated^{25-10-2019in cRP No. 2324 0I 2019 and also the order dated 29'01-} 2021 in l.A.No. 1 of^{2021 in CRP. No.2324ot 2019'</sup>}

¶10

Between:

¶11

G.S.Mallikariun, S/o.^{Late G'srisailam'Aged about 35 years'Occ Business'}

¶12

Ri;.H.N;.5-a-5b, Bhavani^{Colony' Rajendranagar, Hyderabad - 30'}

¶13

...ContemPt Petitioner

¶14

AND

¶15

Smt,KokaRadhaDevi,lllAddl'ChiefJudge,CityCivilCourtatHyderabad'

¶16

."ResPondent

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 20 1

¶18

Petition under Section^{'1 51 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the} affidavit filed^{in support of the petition, the High court may be pleasedto grant leave} to file^{presentcontempt case againstthe Respondent for violatingthe orders} pr.ruO'in C.R.p.No. ZiSZq ot^{2019,25110t2019as well as in lA 1/2021dated} 29101t2021 , in the^{interestof justice.}

¶19

Counsel for the^{Petitioner:SRl'T. RAJINIKANTHREDDY}

¶20

CounselfortheRespondent:SRIB.NALINKUMAR,(SCFORHIGHCOURT)

¶21

The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

¶22

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM^AKTHER

¶23

I.A.No,1 of 2O21 inland

¶24

:ONTEMPT CASE No.1211 OF^2O21

¶25

COMMoN ot DERr

¶26

LA,No.: of 202L is filed under Section^{151 of C.P.C, by the} petitioner, to grant leave to file the^present Contempt Case against the r( spondent for^{violatingthe order dated 25.10.2019} passed by tlis Court in C.R.P.No.2324 of 2079 and also the order dated 29.0L.202t^passed by^{this Court in I.A.No.1of 2021} in C.R.P.No.2 J24 of 2079.

¶27

Conten^pt Case N0.1211 of 2027 is filed under Sections¹⁰ to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, L97L, by the^petitioner seeking to^pr nish the respondent for willful disobedience of^the aforesa id ord rrs.

¶28

Heard he learned counsel for the^petitioner anC^perused the record.

¶29

The res londent is^present ln^person before this Court.

¶30

It is s( bmitted that due to^prevalence of COVID-19, the Cou rts were rot functioning physically and the^parties were not attending an I the Advocates also did not cooperate and hence the suit in O S.No.729 of 2013 on the file of III Additlonal Chief Judge, City )ivil Courts, Hyderabad, could not be disposed of within the stl )ulated time by this Court. It is also submitted that the respond€ nt was transferred from the said post and now she is working as Judge, Family Court-cum-III Additional District and Sessions lud le,^Warangal.

¶31

In view of these^{circumstances,it cannot be held that} there was willful disobedience^{of the orders of this Court,by the} respondent. Therefore,^{the respondentcannct be proceededwith} under the Contempt^{of Courts Act, L971.}

¶32

Accordingly, I.A.No'1^{of 2O2L& C.C'No'1211 of 2021are} disposed of and all^{further proceedingsin C'C'No'1211of 2021} are closed.

¶33

Miscellaneous^{Petitions,if any, pendingin this Contempt}

¶34

Case shall stand^{closed.No costs.}

¶35

s D /- c H bvEEJ{mrE EHt^THIH //rRUE coPY/t Gb

¶36

SECTION OFFICER

¶37

To,

¶38

SmtKokaRadhaDevi,lllAddl,ChiefJudge,CityCivilCourtatHyderabad. tpiu."ni^{*otfingas judge,Family Courl -cum- lll AdditionalDistrict and} Sessions Judge,^Warangal. )

¶39

The Chief Judge,^{City CivilCourt, Hyderabad'}

¶40

J. onl cc to s{t.^{r,nAltNlKANTHREDDYAdvocate [oPUC]} 4. o;; aa to^{sRl.B. NALIN KUMAB(scFoR HIGHcouRr)Advocate [oPUc]} 5. Two CD CoPies 6. The District and^{Session Judge' Warangal'}

¶41

One Spare^CoPY KUL R r'vT

HIGH COURT

DATED:191111i'.02,,l

COMON ORDE R

l.A. NO. 1cF i021 IN / AND CC.No.1211 o12021

¶46

*i: 5 T,q ,t
<br>^
(jo 21 irlil2t?t

¶47

disposing of the I.A.No.I of2021 and CC No. 1211of2021.

¶48

*y (-\ ', @)

G.S.Mallikarjun v. Smt Koka Radha Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.S.Mallikarjun v. Smt Koka Radha Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yada Narender Vs the State of A.P. and Another

V.Shankaraiah, Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

G.Shiva Raj Vs Smt. G.Durga Bhavani and the State of A.P.

Kolanti Ramesh Vs the State of A.P.

Y. Suryanarayana Raju Vs Vadali Srinivasa Raju and 3 Others, Rep. by P.P.

A.Ravindranath Vs M.Gopal Reddy and 2 Others, Rep. by Pp.