Gist:>Head Note:? Cases referred:

1. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1252

2. 2009 (4) SCC 213

3. 2023(2) ALD 693 (AP)

4. 2016(1) ALD 579 (DB)

5. (2013) 14 SCC 127

6. (1984) 3 SCC 405

7. (2007) 11 SCC 374

8. (2014) 7 SCC 280

CONTEMPT CASE No.1636 of 2025

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 17.03.2026

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No may be allowed to see the Judgments?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No marked to Law Reporters/Journals

3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair Yes/No copy of the Judgment?

____________________

RAVI NATH TILHARI,J

_____________________________

MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM,J

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

C.C.No.1636 of 2025

ORDER:-

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari)

Heard Ms.Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for the contempt petitioners and Sri Y.N.Vivekananda, learned counsel along with Sri Deepak Misra, learned counsel (appearing through virtual mode) for the respondent No.2.

Respondent No.2 - Sri Nagatham Mukunda Reddy is present in person.

FACTS:

The present Contempt Petition has been filed by the petitioners against the respondent No.2 (respondent Nos.1, 3 & 4 are deceased) for willful disobedience of the interim order dated 16.07.2021 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in A.S.No.1280 of 2017 pending in this Court.

The contempt petitioners are the respondent Nos.1 & 2 in A.S.No.1280 of 2017 and the respondent No.2 is the appellant No.2 in the appeal. The contempt petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.139 of 2009 on the file of V Additional District Judge, Tirupati which was decreed on 06.09.2017 against which the present respondent No.2, along with one another (deceased), has filed the appeal.

INTERIM ORDER IN APPEAL:

In the Appeal A.S.No.1280 of 2017, I.A.No.1 of 2021 was filed by respondent No.2 for release of the original documents marked as Exs.B2 to B7 in the suit before the learned Trial Court. The application was opposed by the petitioners. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court however ordered I.A.No.1 of 2021 vide order dated 16.07.2021, in the following terms:

“8. In the above said circumstances, this court feels that as it takes much time for listing of the main appeal for final hearing this application is considered now for the interregnum period subject to the following conditions:

1) The Registry shall return the original documents/Exs.B2 to B7 marked in O.S.No.139 of 2009 on the file of V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, to the petitioners herein on furnishing the certified copies of the same in advance to the Registry by way of substitution, 2) the above said original documents shall be released to the petitioners herein under a proper receipt and endorsement, 3) the petitioners shall not create either any third party rights over the suit schedule properties or alter the same basing upon the above said documents, 4) the petitioners shall not pledge/mortgage the above said original documents in any manner for any purpose, and 5) the petitioners shall return the said original documents to the Registry of this court at the time of hearing and disposal of the main appeal by this court. Accordingly, the Interlocutory Application is ordered.”

The application was thus allowed, subject to the conditions inter-alia, in clause (3) that the respondent No.2 herein (appellant in A.S.No.1280 of 2017) shall not create either any third party rights over the suit schedule properties or alter the same basing upon the above said documents; and in clause (4) that they (appellants) shall not pledge/mortgage the original documents in any manner for any purpose. They were also directed in clause (5) to return the original documents to the Registry at the time of hearing and disposal of the A.S.No.1280 of 2017.

The Respondent No.2 (appellant in A.S.No.1280 of 2017) file