Telangana High Court
CC/474/2017 of Solipuram Swapna Vs Sydulu Goud on 29 December 2023
under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 lo punish the respondent for his willful disobedience of the orders dt. 06.01.2017 passed in WP No. 941 of ZOll of this Hon'ble High Court. Between: Solipuram Swapna, D/o. i!'lipuram Venkatrami Reddy Wo. Naresh Kumar Aged 29years, occ
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO
CONTEMPT cASE NO: 474OF 2017
Contempt case filed under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act1971 lo punish the respondent for his willful disobedience of the orders dt.06.01.2017 passed in WP No. 941 of ZOll of this Hon'ble High Court.06.01.2017 passed in WP No. 941 of ZOll of this Hon'ble High Court.
Between:
Solipuram Swapna, D/o. i!'lipuram Venkatrami Reddy Wo. Naresh Kumar Aged 29years, occ Housewife, Rt/o. Dr. No. 8-3-169/601240, lndianagar, Bora5anda,Hyderabad.years, occ Housewife, Rt/o. Dr. No. 8-3-169/601240, lndianagar, Bora5anda,Hyderabad.
... Petitioner/Petitioner
AND
Sydulu Goud, Occ: The Tahsildar, Khairatabad Mandal, Hyderabad, HyderabadDistrict.
RespondenURespondent No.2
Counsel for the Petitione(s):SRt . HANUMANTHA RAO BACHtNA, Advocate Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT
The Court made the following ORDER:
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENTVAS RAO
CONTEMPT CASE No.474 of 2OL7
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This contempt case, under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, is frled by the petitioner to punish the respondentfor gross violation of the order, dated 06.0l .2017 passed by thisCourt in W.P.No.941 of 2017.
2. Heard Sri B.Hanumanth Rao, learned counsel for thepetitioner arrd learned Assistant Government Pleader forAssignment appearing for the respondent.
3. A perusal of the record shows perusal of the record shows of the record shows the record shows record shows shows that this Court whileCourt whilewhiledisposing of the W.P.No.941 of 2Ol7 on 06.0l.2Ol7 directed therespondent not to dispossess the petitioner from the subjectproperty without following due process of law.
A perusal of the record shows perusal of the record shows of the record shows the record shows record shows shows that this Court whileCourt whilewhile The specific allegation of the petitioner is that in spite of the order passed by this Court, the respondent without following anydue process of law trying to dispossess the petitioner from thesubject property.due process of law trying to dispossess the petitioner from thesubject property.
\I
I
.)
2JSR,JC.C.No.474 of 2017
The respondent/contemnor respondent/contemnor filed counter counter on O2.OB.2O|7,O2.OB.2O|7, 5The respondent/contemnor respondent/contemnor filed counter counter on O2.OB.2O|7,O2.OB.2O|7,wherein it is specihcally stated that the subject property is vacant,the same is in possession of the Government and sign boards havebeen erected. Therefore, the question of dispossessionordemolition of the petitioner's house property does not arise. Insupport of the said averments, the respondent filed photographsalong with the counter-affidavit
6. The petitioner neither filed reply nor petitioner neither filed reply nor reply nor nor denied the avermentsmade in the counter-afhdavit filed by the respondent The petitioner neither filed reply nor petitioner neither filed reply nor reply nor nor denied the averments 7 . In rriew of the specific averments made by the respondent rriew of the specific averments made by the respondent of the specific averments made by the respondent the specific averments made by the respondent specific averments made by the respondent the respondent respondent inthe counter-affrdavit, ttris Court does not find any merits in thepresent contempt case In rriew of the specific averments made by the respondent rriew of the specific averments made by the respondent of the specific averments made by the respondent the specific averments made by the respondent specific averments made by the respondent the respondent respondent in
8. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. No costs Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
SD/.CH. VENKATESWARLUDEPUTYREGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
1. Two CCs to GP for Assignment, [High Court for the ][State ][of ][Telangana ][at]Hyderabad. [OUT]2. One CC to Sri. Hanumantha [Rao Bachina, ][Advocate ][OPUC]3. Two CD copies.cvkHyderabad. [OUT]2. One CC to Sri. Hanumantha [Rao Bachina, ][Advocate ][OPUC]3. Two CD copies.cvk HIGH COURT
DATED:2911212023
o.J1 S FIii iiii,l'i,ORDER-'t.' [,l]-1 - .- ;' ,../._ - [':i.Sp ]r\:- r I atii [--,.,-"]-::::;;;.-GC.No.474 of 2017
CC IS CLOSED.6\>\o\''-^'r'