Andhra Pradesh High Court
CC/2375/2025 of Gurram China Narasaiah, Vs B.Somla Naik, on 30 August 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] MONDAY, THE 31st DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2375/2025 Between: Gurram China Narasaiah, ...PETITIONER AND B Somla Naik ...CONTEMNOR
APHC010449792025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE 31st DAY OF AUGUST 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2375/2025
Between:
Gurram China Narasaiah,
...PETITIONER
AND
B Somla Naik
...CONTEMNOR
Counsel for the Petitioner:
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.
1. M K RAJ KUMAR Counsel for the Contemnor:
1. J DILEEP KUMAR The court made the following order:
This contempt case is filed against the respondents for willful disobedience of orders dated 06.09.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.No.12892/2021.
2. Heard Sri M.K.Raj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri J.Dileep Kumar, learned counsel for respondent.
3. Sri J.Dileep Kumar, learned counsel for respondent while relying on the counter affidavit submitted that, pursuant to the orders passed by this court dated 06.09.2024, the respondents have not interfered with the petitioner’s possession and not initiated any action including issuance of notice, therefore prayed to dismiss the contempt case.
4. Perused the record and considered the submissions of both the learned counsel.
5. This Court has disposed of the W.P.No.12892/2021 on 06.09.2024 with the following direction: “The respondent authorities are directed not to interfere with possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the subject property except under due process of law. There shall be no orders as to costs.”
6. The petitioner has filed the present contempt case stating that despite the above orders, the authorities are interfering with his possession over the subject property and thereby willfully flouted the orders passed by this court. However, para no.6 in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent would indicate that the respondents have not interfered with the petitioner’s possession and not initiated any action including issuance of notice. Evidently, there is no material placed on record to show that the authorities have interfered with the subject property. In view of the same, it cannot be said that the authority concerned has not followed the directions of this court, as such, there lies no contempt against the respondents and contempt is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, contempt case is dismissed. No costs.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS