Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 780
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
P.SAM KOSHY, N. TUKARAMJI, JJ.
R. Mallikarjuna - Appellant
Versus
K. Sanjeeva Reddy - Respondent
Contempt Case No.2629 of 2024
Decided On : 14-08-2025
For the Appellant : Gandyadapu Rajesham, Adv.
For the Respondent: Lingala Sudheer, Adv.
The burden of proof lies on the petitioner to demonstrate willful disobedience of court orders; absence of concrete evidence results in dismissal of contempt claims.
Headnote:(A) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Sections 10 to 12 - Willful disobedience of a court order - The petitioner alleged violation of status quo order in a previous case; however, failure to provide concrete proof of the alleged construction post-order led to dismissal. (Paras 1-7)
(B) Burden of Proof - It is the petitioner's responsibility to substantiate claims of contempt with concrete evidence, failing which proceedings are not actionable. (Paras 5-7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a contempt case claiming that respondents violated a status quo order regarding construction activities on a road. The petitioner presented no substantial evidence beyond complaints to authorities, leading to the conclusion that there was no violation.
Findings of Court:
The court found no strong case for contempt due to a lack of proof regarding the alleged post-order construction and concluded that the respondents had not disobeyed the court's order.
Issues: The key issues were whether contempt had occurred through violation of a previous court order and the adequacy of the evidence provided by the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the absence of concrete evidence to support the claims of violation meant that allegations of contempt could not be upheld, emphasizing the importance of the burden of proof on the petitioner.
Result: Contempt Case stands closed; respondents discharged of contempt proceedings.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. contempt petition filed for status quo violation. (Para 1 , 4) |
| 2. arguments presented regarding proof of violation. (Para 2 , 5) |
| 3. status quo order details and prior constructions. (Para 3 , 6) |
| 4. court's decision on contempt case dismissal. (Para 7) |
| 5. closure of pending miscellaneous petitions. (Para 8) |
ORDER:
P. SAM KOSHY, J.
The instant Contempt Case is filed by the petitioner under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 praying the Court to punish the respondents herein for willful disobedience and violation of status quo order in I.A.No.02 of 2024 in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.444 of 2024, dated 03.09.2024, passed by this Court.
2. Heard Mr. Gandyadapu Rajesham, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Lingala Sudheer, learned counsel for the respondents.
3. Vide order dated 03.09.2024, in I.A.No.02 of 2024 in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.444 of 2024, this Bench directed the respondents herein to maintain status quo as it existed then and further restrained the respondents from making any further development activities on the road, i.e., visible at Page No.122 of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.144 of 2024.
4. Alleging violation of the above order by the respondents, the instant Contempt Case has been filed by the petitioner.
5. However, in spite of couple of opportunities being given to the learned counsel for the petitioner to produce cogent, concrete proof to show that the so-called construction of pre- cast boundary wall on the road in question was done after the above interim order was passed by this Bench, i.e., dated 03.09.2024, in I.A.No.02 of 2024 in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.444 of 2024, he submitted that except for a couple of complaints that he has lodged before the Police authorities and also to the local administration, he does not have any other proof to show that the alleged construction of pre-cast boundary wall on the road in question was done after 03.09.2024.
6. Perusal of the records, more particularly, that of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.444 of 2024, Writ Petition No.3377 of 2020 and also O.S.No.526 of 2023, would go to show that there is a reference of construction of pre-cast boundary wall by the alleged respondents / contemnors at a couple of places which mean that there was a boundary wall already constructed even before the above interim order could be passed by this Court, i.e., dated 03.09.2024, in I.A.No.02 of 2024 in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.444 of 2024. In fact, the relief sought by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.3377 of 2020 was for removal and demolition of compound wall that was constructed in Survey Nos.251 and 252 of Murtuzaguda Village, Moinabad Mandal Ranga Reddy District, by the respondent No.6 therein, and to direct the respondent Nos.5 and 6 therein to restore the cart way / passage to the petitioner’s land in Sy.No.254/A1 of Murtuzaguda Village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
7. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the firm view that no strong case has been made out by the learned counsel for the petitioner to punish the respondents herein for willful disobedience and violation of status quo order passed by this Court in I.A.No.02 of 2024 in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.444 of 2024, dated 03.09.2024. Accordingly, the Contempt Case stands closed. The respondents herein stand discharged of the contempt proceedings under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 initiated by the petitioner. No costs.
8. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
