Smt.Bhushamma vs Smt.Sankuru Sakku Bai

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 2537 Tel
Judgement Date : 20 September, 2023

Telangana High Court
Smt.Bhushamma vs Smt.Sankuru Sakku Bai on 20 September, 2023
Bench: Alok Aradhe, N.V.Shravan Kumar
     THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                        AND
     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

                CONTEMPT APPEAL No.12 of 2023

JUDGMENT: (per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)


       Mr. Manu, learned counsel appears for the appellants.


2.     This appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts

Act, 1971, has been filed against an order dated 28.08.2023

passed by the learned Single Judge in C.C.No.1221 of 2023 by

which     the     appellants    have     been    found      guilty   of

non-compliance of the judgment and decree dated 05.07.2022

in Second Appeal No.247 of 2021.


3.     By the aforesaid order dated 28.08.2023, appellant No.1

has been imposed a fine of Rs.25,000/-, and in default,

appellant No.1 has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment

for a period of one month. Appellant Nos.2 and 3 have been

directed to undergo imprisonment for a period of three (3)

months.


4.     The facts giving rise for filing of this appeal briefly

stated are that the respondent filed O.S.No.924 of 2005

CJ & NVSK, J 2 C.A.No.12 of 2023 seeking the relief of eviction. The aforesaid civil suit was decreed on 08.07.2020. The appellants filed A.S.No.25 of 2020 which was dismissed on 08.09.2021. The appellants thereupon filed S.A.No.247 of 2021. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the aforesaid Second Appeal vide judgment dated 05.07.2022 directed the appellants to vacate the premises in question within six (6) months and to file an undertaking before the primary Court to that effect. The appellants furnished an undertaking that they would vacate the premises by 04.01.2023. However, the appellants did not vacate the premises in question and they continued to be in possession of the premises in question contrary to the undertaking furnished by them. Thereupon, the respondent filed C.C.No.1221 of 2023 under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The learned Single Judge by an order dated 28.08.2023 has found the appellants guilty of wilful disobedience of the undertaking furnished by them as contained in the judgment dated 05.07.2022 passed in S.A.No.247 of 2021 and has imposed a fine of Rs.25,000/- on appellant No.1 and in default, appellant No.1 has been directed to undergo imprisonment for CJ & NVSK, J 3 C.A.No.12 of 2023 a period of one month. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have been directed to undergo imprisonment for a period of three (3) months. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that appellant No.1 is an old aged person and is bedridden. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge has imposed a fine of Rs.25,000/- on appellant No.1. It is further submitted that appellant No.2 had handed over the possession of the premises in question to the respondent. However, the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the learned Single Judge.

6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the record.

7. Admittedly, the appellants have not complied with the directions contained in the judgment dated 05.07.2022 in S.A.No.247 of 2021 as well as the undertaking furnished by them to the Court by which they agreed to vacate the premises on or before 04.01.2023. The defence taken by appellant No.2 CJ & NVSK, J 4 C.A.No.12 of 2023 that she handed over the possession of the premises in question to the respondent in the month of July, 2023 is not substantiated by any material on record. The appellant No.2 is unable to say as to which day in July, 2023, she handed over the possession of the premises in question to the respondent.

8. The appellants are guilty of wilful disobedience of the judgment and decree dated 05.07.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.A.No.247 of 2021 as well as the undertaking furnished by them before the Court. We therefore do not find any ground to differ with the view taken by the learned Single Judge.

9. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

___________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ ________________________ N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J 20th SEPTEMBER, 2023.

kvni