Smt.Vijaya Lakshmi, Hyd Another vs Saifuddin Lakhani, Hyd 2 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 531 Tel

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 531 Tel
Judgement Date : 10 February, 2022

Telangana High Court

Smt.Vijaya Lakshmi, Hyd Another vs Saifuddin Lakhani, Hyd 2 Others on 10 February, 2022

Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, Abhinand Kumar Shavili

  THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                    AND
      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI



        CONTEMPT APPEAL Nos.15 and 25 of 2017

COMMON JUDGMENT:       (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)


      Regard being had to the controversy involved in the aforesaid

cases, they were heard together and are being decided by a

common judgment.

      The facts of C.A.No.15 of 2017 are reproduced as under:

      The present appeal is arising out of an order dated

18.04.2017 passed in C.C.No.2053 of 2016. The facts of the case

reveal that the appellant before this Court, who was arrayed as a

contemnor in the contempt case, is having a flat in a building,

named as Mega Residency, located at House No.5-8-505/A/4,

Chirag Ali Lane, Hyderabad.             The building is of four floors,

including a pent house. The appellant before this Court, Siraj Ali

Panjwani, was residing at fourth floor and he was having 80 years

old parents and therefore he wanted to install a lift in the building

to be used by all the residents of the building.              It has been stated

that he has applied for grant of permission to the Greater

Hyderabad    Municipal     Corporation           (GHMC)         on     27.05.2016.

However, as no permission was granted, taking shelter of deemed

sanction, he started constructing the lift. The construction of the

lift was over and as an action was initiated by the GHMC in the

matter of installation of lift, a civil suit was preferred i.e.,

O.S.No.2072 of 2016, on the file of the learned IV Junior Civil

Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. An application was preferred

i.e., I.A.No.329 of 2016 and the trial Court granted injunction in
                                       2




the matter, as prayed for, on 30.08.2016. Meaning thereby, the

GHMC was restrained from removing the lift, which was functional

by then. The respondent No.1 in the present appeal, who was the

writ petitioner - Saifuddin Lakhani, preferred a writ petition before

this Court and the learned Single Judge has granted an interim

order on 16.09.2016, meaning thereby, after the injunction order

was granted in the civil suit. The learned Single Judge, by the

aforesaid order, held that construction of the lift is being made by

Siraj Ali Panjwani and it should be stopped by the GHMC. A

contempt case was filed thereafter stating that the GHMC officials

have violated the interim order passed in W.P.No.30420 of 2016

dated 16.09.2016 and the relevant portion of the order passed by

the learned Single Judge dated 16.09.2016 is reproduced as

under:-

"Pending further orders, the construction for lift allegedly being made by 5th respondent in the subject premises shall be stopped by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation officials for a period of four weeks since the petitioner contends that no permission has been granted by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation for the said construction."

The order passed by the learned Single Judge reveals that

the said order was passed directing the GHMC officials to stop the

construction of lift. The learned Single Judge, as the lift was not

removed/dismantled, has held the appellant guilty and the officers

of the GHMC have also been held guilty. The operative portion of

the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Contempt Case

No.2053 of 2016 in paragraph 51 reads as under:-

"51. For the aforesaid reasons, the Contempt Case is allowed; the 4th respondent is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) within six weeks from today; the respondent nos. 2 and 3 shall also pay fine of Rs.2000/-(Rupees

Two Thousand only) within six weeks from today; the respondent nos. 1-3 shall remove the lift erected by the 4th respondent in the subject complex within 4 weeks from today without reference to the interim order dt.30.08.2016 in I.A.No.329 of 2016 in O.S.No.2072 of 2016 on the file of the IV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad; the 1st respondent shall cause an enquiry into the conduct of the officials of GHMC in Circle-8 in relation to the above facts pointed out by the Court and initiate disciplinary proceedings against the persons responsible for violation of the orders passed by this Court; and he shall also ensure that in the City Civil Court at Hyderabad or Secunderabad or Ranga Reddy, competent Counsel are engaged by the GHMC who would defend it properly in litigation initiated against it or by it."

This Court fails to understand as to how an interim order

passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.2072 of 2016, without it being

set aside or without it being vacated, could have been ignored by

the GHMC authorities.

Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, as the

construction of the lift was already over by 16.09.2016, the same

could not have been removed in the light of the injunction order

granted on 30.08.2016 in I.A.No.329 of 2016 in O.S.No.2072 of

2016.

In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the order sentencing

the appellant in C.A.No.15 of 2017 to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- is

set aside and the order sentencing the appellants in C.A.No.25 of