Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Yanduru Venkata Narasimha Rao vs This Contempt Case Is Filed By The ... on 13 September, 2024
1
APHC010236102016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3369]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2407/2016
Between:
Yanduru Venkata Narasimha Rao, Krishna Dist. ...PETITIONER
AND
Veeramachaneni Naga Mani Krishna Dist ...CONTEMNOR
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. RAJA REDDY KONETI
Counsel for the Contemnor:
1. GHANTA SRIDHAR
The Court made the following ORDER:
1. This Contempt Case is filed by the Petitioner, who is the Appellant in
A.S.No.79 of 2009, seeking to punish the Respondent, who is the Respondent
No.1, in terms of Section 10 and 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for
violating the orders of this Court passed in ASMP.No.1049 of 2016 in ASMP
No.248 of 2009 in A.S.No.79 of 2009 dated 21.09.2016.
2. The Respondent herein filed O.S.No.7 of 2022 seeking specific
performance of a contract on 15.07.1998. Additionally, the Petitioner filed
O.S.No.46 of 1998 seeking partition of the schedule properties. Both suits
were consolidated for trial. The trial court decreed the specific performance
suit, while the partition suit was dismissed. The petitioners subsequently
appealed both judgments. The respondent then filed ASMP No. 1049 of 2016
in ASMP No. 248 of 2009, in A.S. No. 79 of 2009, requesting this Court's
permission to repair and construct the first floor of the terraced building
described in the plaint, which consists of five shops, and sought other related
reliefs.
3. This Court has authorized the petitioner (who is the respondent in the
contempt case) to undertake repairs to the plaint schedule terraced building.
This building, which comprises five shops and three partitioned residential
houses, is located at D.No.2/202 and 2/203-A within 325 square yards in
Agiripalli Gram Panchayat, Agiripalli village, and Mandal. Additionally, the
petitioner has been permitted to construct the first floor on the aforementioned
terraced building.
4. The petitioner contends that the respondent commenced construction of
the upper floor without obtaining the necessary permissions or sanctioned
plans. No evidence has been placed to demonstrate that the concerned
authority has issued any proceedings against the respondent for making
constructions without obtaining the necessary approvals and plans. The
respondent began the construction by demolishing the verandah (vasara),
which had been used by the petitioner's family. The petitioner contends that
the Respondent has no right to demolish any part of the building.
5. The petitioner has failed to provide any prima facie evidence to
demonstrate that the respondent intentionally violated this Court's orders.
There is no material on record to show that the respondent's construction
work involved the demolition of any part of the building while undertaking
repairs. The petitioner did not submit negatives or copies of a CD along with
photographs, nor did he provide specific details regarding the alleged
demolition. Although the petitioner submitted photographs showing the portion
of the building occupied by himself and his family, these do not conclusively
prove that any part of the building was demolished.
6. In the common judgment, this Court dismissed the Appeals, rejecting
the petitioner's contentions in the suit. Since the petitioner did not present
prima facie evidence to support his claims, the case is therefore dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Contempt Case, shall
stand closed.
_____________________________
JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO
Date: 13.09.2024
MS / SAK
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2407/2016
Date: 13.09.2024
SAK
