An interim order staying the execution of a decree does not give the party who sought the stay a carte-blanche to exceed the limits of status quo and to do an act which removes the very subject-matter of the suit out of the reach of the decree holder.

P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners in this Contempt s Case are the respondents in Letters Patent Appeal No. 239 of 1986 which was filed against the Judgment in a first appeal. That appeal arose out of a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 28-1-1974 in respect of a building situate in premises No. 23-6-7 and 9, Shah-ali-bande. Hyderabad. The suit for specific performance was decreed by the appellate court reversing the judgment of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, respondents herein filed the Letters Patent Appeal. Pending the Letters Patent Appeal, the appellants (respondents herein) filed an interim application to stay the execution of the decree in O. S. No. 544 of 1975 on the file of IInd Additional Judge, City Civil Court, pursuant to the Judgment and decree dated 9-9-1986 passed in the appeal. A Division Bench of this Court stayed the execution and further ordered as follows :"however, the petitioners are directed not to alienate the house in question and also not to let out the same to tenants pending L. P. A. No. 239 of 1986. "this order was passed on 29-10-1986. It may be stated that on the date of passing of the order, respondents 3 and 4 were minors. It is not in dispute that they became major by the date on which the alleged act of violation of the Court s order was committed.

( 2 ) THE present contempt case was filed on 5-10-1994 alleging that on 30-9-1994, on inspection from the neighbour s house, a major part of the building was without roof and only the walls stood. He further learnt that the second respondent left the palace and respondents 3 and 4 were residing in a corner room of the same bungalow. He caused publication of a notice in the newspapers-Deccan Chronicle and Siasat on 4th and 5/10/1994. Immediately thereafter, this contempt case was filed alleging that the respondents by causing demolition of the building have flouted the order of this Court and committed contempt of Court. It is alleged that by virtue of the demolition, the antiquity and special features of the old palace are irretrievably lost.

( 3 ) IN the counter affidavit sworn to by the 2nd respondent and filed on behalf of all the respondents, it is stated as follows, with reference to the averments in para-4 of the affidavit filed in the contempt case :"the real facts are that the house in question which were very old one and was in dilapidated condition crumbled due to heavy rains in the month of August i. e. , 30th August, 1994, when n my two sons viz. , respondents 3 and 4 were out of the house and I was in a pooja room, and my daughter-in-law was in her room adjacent to my room and my third son i. e. , respondent No. 5 herein was also out side the house with his friends when suddenly the portion of the kitchen room and side wall collapsed having its impact on the middle floor and also on the pillar which cracked down due to the pressure and kitchen utensils and small tables were crushed under it. Then we decided to shift to a safee place along with necessary house-hold items including furniture and temporarily shifted to our relations house at Secunderabad and then to the present address. However, my son shifted the other house-hold items in the rear portion which was a bit safe which consists of two bath rooms and chowidkidar s room which was safe and the items were dumped in the room. The entire roof of the house had fallen down due to natural calamity and is an act of God, which was beyond the control of the respondents. "

( 4 ) THUS, the stand taken in the counter-affidavit is that the building which was an old one collapsed due to heavy rains on 30-8-1994. In elaboration of this statement, it is averred that the collapse of a portion of the kitchen room and side wall had its impact on the middle floor and also on the pillar which cracked down due to pressure. The respondents then shifted to another place taking the house-hold items including furniture, keeping some articles in the rear po

Click Here to Read the rest of this document