ORDER:-(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi NathTilhari)

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.

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

FACTS:

3. 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.

4. 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:

5. 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.”

6. 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.

7. The Respondent No.2 (appellant in A.S.No.1280 of 2017) filed I.A.No.2 of 2021 for modification of the order dated 16.07.2021. The same was rejected by order dated 04.08.2022 which reads as under:

“This application is filed by the petitioner-2^nd appellant to permit him to pledge the original documents in respect of agricultural property in Schedule A of item No.2 before the Nationalised bank.

Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the averments stated in the accompanying affidavit, submits that the petitioner has no other property except the schedule property. Petitioner has two sons who are pursuing their education in private schools. The petitioner and his family have to sustain their livelihood from the subject property alone. There is no other source of income except to utilize the benefits of the subject property. As this Court while ordering IA.No.1 of 2021 directed that the petitioner shall not pledge or mortgage the