Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD
Lakshmi Prasanna, W/o. Omprakash – Appellant
Versus
S Narasimhulu – Respondent
ORDER :
GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J.
Heard Sri A. Sreedhar, Ld. Counsel for the Contempt Petitioner, Sri S. Hruthik, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri M. Sudhir, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No.1 and Sri O.Udaya Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No.2.
2. This Contempt Case is filed alleging violation of the Order of this Court dated 26.03.2025 in W.P.No.7770 of 2025.
3. Para-3 of the Order of this Court dated 26.03.2025 in W.P.No.7770 of 2025 would indicate that this Court had directed the Respondent No.4 (in the Writ Petition) to initiate appropriate legal action if the Respondent No.5 carries-on construction unauthorizedly.
4. On perusal of the Affidavit filed by the Petitioner in support of this Contempt Case, nowhere it is disclosed as to when the Petitioner had in fact conveyed the Order of this Court to the Respondent No.5 in the Writ Petition (Respondent No.2 in the present Contempt Case). The Petitioner has not filed any Photographs to indicate the position of the construction as on the date when this Court had passed order on 26.03.2025 and the further progress in construction.
5. In the matters of construction, the crucial evidence by which the Complainant can
In contempt proceedings, the court does not review the correctness of a compliance order but assesses willful violations of its directions.
Compliance with court orders is crucial, and the court will take into account the actions of the parties in determining contempt cases.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
