IMPORTANT POINT
Contempt proceedings necessitate clear evidence of willful disobedience of court orders; mere allegations are insufficient.

ORDER :

Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, J.

This contempt case has been filed alleging that order of the Court dated 23.11.2017 in CCCA MP No.722 of 2017 in CCCA No.253 of 2017 is violated by the respondent.

2. The operative portion of the order dated 23.11.2017 reads as under :

“.. A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner herein filed I.A.No.232 of 2010 in O.S.no.31 of 2020 before the Court below to direct the respondent herein not to alienate the suit schedule property. There is an interim order in favour of the petitioner during the pendency of the suit.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent is directed not to alienate the suit schedule property pending disposal of the appeal.”

3. Heard Sri B. Rajeshwar Rao, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri T.S. Praveen Kumar learned counsel for respondent.

4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in violation of the directions of the Court, the respondent in trying to alienate the subject property along with the neighbour’s shop by showing the same to the third parties; that when the petitioner resisted the illegal action of the respondent and also brought to the notice of the respondent and her men that the interim order dated 23.11.2017 is existing, the respondent did not hear the contention of petitioner and threatened the petitioner with dire consequences and warned that she will sell the subject property to third parties, which amounts to violation of the orders of the Court.

5. According to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, the petitioner is a tenant of the respondent and entered into lease deed dated 01.03.2001 in respect of subject premises; that subsequently, the petitioner, by creating forged and fabricated agreement of sale, started illegally claiming the subject premises and filed a suit vide O.S.No.31 of 2010 on the file of X Addl.Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for specific performance of Agreement of sale and the said suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 03.10.2017. Aggrieved by dismissal, the petitioner filed CCCA No.253 of 2017 before this Court and this Court passed interim direction not to alienate the suit schedule property.

6. Learned counsel for respondent further submitted that on account of interim order granted by this Court, the petitioner is trying to deal with the property with the neighbour shop owners and was trying to induct them into possession of the subject premises; on knowing the said fact, respondent issued legal notice dated 11.01.2024 through her counsel stating that petitioner has no right or authority to induct anybody in the subject premises or create any third party interest over the subject premises. The learned counsel for respondent submitted that the respondent never violated the orders of this Court; that mere issuing of legal notice does not amount to violation of court order.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the petitioner, who claims breach of Court’s order must allege deliberate or contumacious disobedience of the Court’s order and there must be a clear violation of Court’s order in the form of wilful disobedience even by negligence or carelessness; that in the present case, there is no such wilful disobedience on the part of the respondent and prayed to dismiss the contempt case with exemplary costs.

8. In support of the contention, learned counsel for respondent placed reliance on the following decisions :

(i) Kapildeo Prasad Sah and others vs. State of Bihar and others, (1999) 7 SCC 569; and

(ii) Asha Gupta vs. Sandeep Gupta and others, MANU/DE/2920/2023

9. Perusal of the averments in the affidavit and the material placed on record, would show that this Court vide interim order dated 23.11.2017 in CCCA MP No.722 of 2017 in CCCA No.253 of 2017, directed the respondent ‘not to alienate the suit schedule property pending disposal of the suit.’

10. It is pertinent to note that the suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed by