Smt. H. Neelavathi vs H. Vekataramappa
2021 Latest Caselaw 5397 AP

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
                             &
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY


                  CONTEMPT APPEAL No.16 of 2021


                            (Through physical mode)


Smt. H. Neelavathi @ Lalitha,
W/o. Late H. Mohankumar,
Aged about 45 years,
R/o.Joharapuram Village, Aspari Mandal,
Kurnool District.
                                                            ...Appellant/Petitioner

                             Versus

1. H. Venkataramappa (died)

2. H.Guruprabhanjanaiah,
   S/o.H.Venkataramappa, aged about 35 years,
   Occ : Agriculturist, R/o.Joharapuram Village,
   Aspari Mandal, Kurnool District and two others.

                                                ... Respondents/respondents


Counsel for the appellant               : Mr. K. A. Narasimham

Counsel for the respondents             :             ---



                             JUDGMENT (ORAL)

Dt: 21.12.2021

(per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)

This appeal, under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

(for short, "the Act") (wrongly referred as Section 19 of the Letters Patent

Rules), is filed challenging the order, dated 27.9.2021, passed by a

learned Single Judge in Contempt Case No.1422 of 2020, which in turn

was arising out of the order, dated 07.01.2016, passed in S.A.M.P.No.36

of 2016 (I.A.No.1 of 2016) in S.A.No.302 of 2013 and the consequential

order, dated 03.02.2016, passed in S.A.M.P.No.36 of 2016 (I.A.No.1 of

2016) in S.A.No.302 of 2013.

2. Learned Single Judge has refused to exercise power under the

Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondent contemnors.

3. An appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act can be

preferred against any order or decision of the High Court in exercise of its

jurisdiction to punish for contempt. Thus, where the High Court has not

exercised its jurisdiction to punish for contempt but has dismissed the

contempt applications, no appeal is maintainable under Section 19(1) of

the Act.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the judgment

rendered by a Division Bench of the common High Court of Andhra

Pradesh and Telangana reported in Seera Kannam Naidu and Others

Vs. Neelayamma Choultry and Others1 in which one of us (Hon'ble

Justice M. Satyanarayana Murthy) is a member, to argue that in the said

matter, a Letters Patent Appeal was entertained and the matter was

remitted back to the learned Single Judge.

5. A plain reading of the order passed in the judgment referred to

supra would reveal that while hearing contempt application, the learned

Single Judge set aside some other order passed by the Revenue Divisional

Officer, Vizianagaram Town, Vizianagaram District and in that view of the

matter, the Letters Patent Appeal was entertained because the order

passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer would not have been set aside

under contempt jurisdiction and the same was done in exercise of powers

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The said judgment is of no

2019 (4) ALD 407

assistance to the appellant. In view of the plain language of Section

19(1)(a) of the Act, this appeal is not maintainable.

6. Accordingly, this Contempt Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Pending

miscellaneous applications, if any, in this Contempt Appeal shall stand

closed.

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J

AMD

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

CONTEMPT APPEAL No.16 of 2021

(per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)

Dt: 21.12.2021

AMD