CC/6419/2022 of DASARI YACOB Vs SMT.JANET MALINI THYAGARAJ on 12 March 2026

1. DASARI YACOB, S FLAT NO. 503, LIN KRISHNA DISTRIC

1. SMT JANET MALIN YEARS, R/O. VENKATESWARAP VIJAYAWADA.

2. SRI H RATNAKAR YEARS, R/O. VENKATESWARAP VIJAYAWADA. Petition under Secti that in the circumstances be pleased to punish th contempt of court, as the High court dated 01.03.2 2017 under this contemp

E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH O THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT RI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVEND BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR G NTEMPT CASE NO: 6419/2022 S/O LATE MOSES, AGED ABOUT 55 GAMURTHY CENTRAL, MAIN ROAD T AND NI THYAGARAJ, W/O H R THYAGAR D. NO. 40-3-3, KRISHN PURAM, BESIDE HOTEL D THYAGARAJ, S/O PADMARAJ HEG D. NO. 40-3-3, KRISHN PURAM, BESIDE HOTEL D ...CO ons 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts A s stated in the affidavit file herein the he respondents under the section I0 ey are willfully disobeying the orders 2017 in A.S.M.P No. 338 of 2017 in t of court Act and pass DESH

H DRANATH ROY GEDELA 5 YEARS, R/O. D, VUYYURU, ...PETITIONER RAJ, AGED 59 NA NAGAR, V MANOR, GDE, AGED 67 NA NAGAR, V MANOR, ONTEMNOR(S): Act 1971 praying High Court may 0 and 12 of the s of this Hon'ble A.S. No. 132 of

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. P SRI RAM Counsel for the Contemnor(S):

1. V V RAVI PRASAD

The Court made the following: ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy)

This contempt case is preferred by respondent No.5 in A.S.No.132 of 2017 on the file of this Court, who is respondent No.4 in O.S.No.18 of 2009 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, against the respondents, who are defendant Nos.9 and 10 in O.S.No.18 of 2009 and the appellants in A.S.No.132 of 2017.

2. Heard learned counsel for the contempt petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

3. Originally, the Convention of Baptist Churches of the Northern Circars (hereinafter, referred to as ‘CBCNC’) represented by its chairman of the trust association filed a suit for permanent injunction in the trial Court in O.S.No.18 of 2009 against the respondents herein, who are defendant Nos.9 and 10 in the said suit and other defendants for permanent injunction, restraining them from interfering with the possession of the CBCNC in respect of the plaint schedule property. The said suit was dismissed by the trial Court. But the trial Court has appointed the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, as receiver to take possession of the said property from the respondents herein, who are defendant Nos.9 and 10 in the suit and to manage the same, subject to the consent to be given by the District Collector. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the trial Court in appointing the District Collector as receiver to take possession of the plaint schedule property from the respondents herein and to manage the same, they preferred the appeal in A.S.No.132 of 2017. The contempt petitioner is respondent No.5 in the said appeal. The respondents, as appellants in the said appeal, filed an application to suspend the order of the trial Court in appointing the District Collector as receiver, in A.S.M.P.No.338 of 2017. In the said interlocutory application the learned Single Judge of this Court ordered to maintain status quo. As the trial judge found the respondents herein, who are defendant Nos.9 and 10, to be in possession of the plaint schedule property, if at all any status quo order is passed by the Court, it means that the possession of defendant Nos.9 and 10 till the District Collector receives the said property, after giving his consent, is to be maintained. But, the contempt petitioner interpreting the same as that no construction or any change is to be made in the said property as per the status quo order, has filed this contempt petition stating that defendant Nos.9 and 10 are making constructions in the said property.

4. In fact, this Court did not pass any order restraining the defendant Nos.9 and 10, who are in possession of the said property not to make any constructions in the property or not to make any changes of the plaint schedule property. Therefore, it cannot be said that they have violated any direction of this Court or that they have committed any willful contempt of the order of this Court. Therefore, the present contempt case is not maintainable. In fact, at the time of hearing the contempt case, learned counsel for the contempt petitioner also did not press for the petition and he has clearly stated that he has no objection for dismissal of the contempt case.

5. Resultantly, the Contempt Case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

_____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

Date: 13.03.2026 MDP