P. VENKATARARNA REDDI, J.

( 1 ) ). AGGRIEVED by the following direction given by the learned Single Judge while disposing of the Contempt Case Nos. 1435, 1503 and 1507 of 1999, these Letters Patent appeals are filed by the respondent in the contempt Cases:". . . . . . THIS Court feels it just and expedient to direct the plaintiff company to restore the same position which was prevailing in the property in dispute (i. e. , commercial complex) as on the date of passing the status quo order by the trial Court" ).

( 2 ) ). The said direction was given on the premise that the appellant herein had violated the status quo order passed by the trial Court which was affirmed in appeal by this Court. As the learned Judge was of the view that such violation was not wilful or deliberate, but on account of misunderstanding of the interim order, the appellant was absolved of the charge of contempt. At the same time, the above direction was given purportedly to preserve and effectuate the status quo order. It is the contention of the appellant that the learned single Judge out-stepped his jurisdiction in granting such direction and that the fundamental assumption underlying such direction is factually and legally unsupportable.

( 3 ) FOR resolving the controversy, it is necessary to narrate the background in which the status quo order came to be passed. It appears that the family members of the Managing Director of the appellant company and the respondents herein who are related to each other purchased 9924 Sq. yds. , of land situate in yellareddyguda and Panjagutta areas of hyderabad city in the year 1992 and 1993. The respondents entered into what are known as development Agreements on 24-11-1993 with the plaintiff-Company for developing the site by way of construction of multi-storied commercial/residential complex. Pursuant thereto, the respondents executed deeds in favour of the Managing director of the appellant-Company nominating the latter as their lawful attorney to do various acts such as taking possession of the property, filing applications before the Municipal corporation and other authorities for getting the necessary sanctions, to enter into agreements of sale, to hand over the possession of the constructed areas to the third parties in terms of the Development agreement etc. It is the contention of the appellant that the respondents received the consideration representing the value of the land. However, the respondents deny the same and contend that the amount initially deposited in Bank was returned. Obviously, the disputes arose between the parties after the construction started. There is some dispute on the question whether one of the respondents was also associated with and expended money on the construction since the beginning, but it is not necessary to dilate on that controversy. On 30-11-1997, the respondents purported to cancel the powers of Attorney by executing the deeds of cancellation. This led to the filing of the three suits against the three respondents herein by the appellant-Company represented by the Managing Director. The relief sought for in the suits is to declare the deeds of cancellation of Powers of Attorney as invalid and not binding on the plaintiff. a schedule consists of three items which are vacant lands owned by each of the respondents situate in Panjagutta and yellareddyguda localities. b schedule gives the description of the cancellation deeds dated 30-7-1997. A consequential injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in any manner with the operations under the Development agreement was also prayed for.

( 4 ) IN the written statement, the respondent inter alia took the stand that the development Agreements did not culminate into concluded contracts inasmuch as the plaintiff did not act on them and pay the consideration promised and therefore the Powers of Attorney became inoperative. It is also averred that the construction was stopped in December, 1995 itself and no further

Click Here to Read the rest of this document