Point of Law: Mortgage transaction being not in force now according to the version of the petitioner, which the respondent had entered into with a third party. No intention as such to flout the orders of this Court is seen nor demonstrated by the material produced by the petitioner. It is desirable therefore, to reject this claim of the petitioner for contempt action against the respondent.

ORDER :

The appellant in S.A.No.587 of 2014 and the petitioner in S.A.M.P.No.1661 of 2014 is the petitioner. The respondent is the 2nd respondent in the above matters.

2. The respondent along with his mother and sisters laid a suit for partition in O.S.No.75 of 1979 on the file of the Court of the learned I Additional District Munsif, Adoni, Kurnool District. On contest, it was dismissed by the decree and judgment dated 06.05.1988. The property concerned to this suit is stated to be matruka held by Sri Beldar Hussain Sab. The plaintiffs in that suit preferred A.S.No.86 of 1988 on the file of the Court of then Subordinate Judge (Senior Civil Judge), Adoni and it was allowed by the decree and judgment dated 12.12.1995. The defendants therein preferred S.A.No.480 of 1997 on the file of this Court and it was dismissed by judgment dated 25.07.2008.

3. Pursuant to preliminary decree for partition in their favour passed in A.S.No.86 of 1988 the respondent along with other plaintiffs filed I.A.No.18 of 1996 in O.S.No.75 of 1979 before the trial Court during pendency of S.A.No.480 of 1997 for passing final decree. Final decree was passed therein and basing on the reports of the commissioner, 8 plots in S.No.376 and S.No.377/2 of Mandhagiri were allotted to the plaintiffs.

4. The petitioner is a purchaser pendente lite of plot No.19 under a registered sale deed dated 26.11.1982 from the 3rd defendant Sri Abdul Rawoof. Basing on this sale transaction, the petitioner and others sought to implead themselves as parties to the final decree petition filing I.A.No.973 of 2009 in I.A.No.18 of 1996 in O.S.No.75 of 1979. It was dismissed by the trial Court, against which, the petitioner and others filed C.R.P.Nos.4930, 5027 and 4272 of 2010 before this Court when was at Hyderabad. They were allowed. Consequently, the petitioner was added as respondent No.25 in the final decree petition in I.A.No.18 of 1996.

5. The petitioner filed A.S.No.43 of 2013 against the orders passed in I.A.No.18 of 1996 in O.S.No.75 of 1979 on the file of the Court of the learned II Additional District Judge, Adoni. Upon hearing the parties, A.S.No.43 of 2013 was dismissed by the decree and judgment dated 03.04.2014 confirming the final decree passed.

6. The petitioner preferred S.A.No.587 of 2014 on the file of this Court against the decree and judgment in A.S.No.43 of 2013 and in S.A.M.P.No.1661 of 2014, status quo was directed to be maintained as per order on 16.09.2014. This order reads as follows :

“In view of the orders passed by this Court in CRP Nos.4930, 5027 and 4272 of 2010, there shall be status quo as far as the land purchased by the appellant is concerned. The lower court may proceed with regard to the remaining properties.”

7. Now, it is the complaint of the petitioner that in spite of knowing the afore-stated order, being a party to S.A.No.587 of 2014, the respondent executed a release deed bearing document No.8403 of 2016, dated 23.09.2016 in respect of plot No.19 to an extent of 266.66 sq.yards of Mandhagiri village, Adoni Mandal. She further complained that the respondent executed release deed bearing document No.2632 of 2018, dated 28.03.2018 in favour of one Sri Jakir Hussain. Further complaint of the petitioner is that the respondent mortgaged this property under registered document No.2667 of 2018 in favour of a third party, which he later cancelled through another registered document dated 29.12.2018 bearing No.11923 of 2018.

8. Thus, it is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent violated the afore-stated orders of status quo, making himself liable for contempt under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

9. The respondent resisted this version of the petitioner in the counter and referred to nature of the relief sought in S.A.M.P.No.1661 of 2014 in S.A.No.587 of 2014, which is for the purpose of stay of operation of order of final decree dated 03.05.2013 in I.A.No.18 of 1996 in O.S.No.75 of 1979. The respondent further contended that