ORDER:

Despite listing the matter for orders, neither the petitioners nor their counsel did not choose to appear. For that reason, this Court has proceeded to consider this petition on merits.

2. Mr. C. Praveen, learned counsel for the respondents is present and heard.

3. This contempt case is filed by the petitioners/appellants in I.A.No.1 of 2018 in S.A.No. 1753 of 2018 to punish the respondents for willful disobedience of the order, dated 17.03.2022.

4. The petitioners through the 3rd petitioner on affidavit submits that the respondents had filed the suit vide O.S.No.171 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mancherial seeking permanent injunction from interfering with the land in Sy.Nos.86/1 and 86/2 of Mulkalla shiwar of Mancherial town admeasuring Ac.07-04 guntas (for short (cid:145)the schedule land(cid:146)). After due trial, the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved, the respondents preferred an appeal vide A.S.No.75 of 2017 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Mancherial. The appeal was allowed inverting the judgment of the trial Court. Challenging the judgment in appeal, the petitioners filed second appeal on the file of this Court vide S.A. No.1753 of 2018 wherein an interlocutory application was moved seeking suspension of operation and effect of the appeal judgment. This Court vide order dated 17.03.2022 has directed the parties to maintain status quo. In that position, the respondents herein in disobedience of the order attempted to enter into the suit land and the same was reported to the Station House Officer, Hazipur Police Station, Ramagundam Commissionerate on 30.06.2022. The act of the respondents is in violation of the orders of this Court. Hence, liable to be punished for contempt.

5. Mr. C. Praveen, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the respondents filed a detailed counter. Further pleaded that the contempt case is misconceived as there is no interim order in favour of the petitioners on the alleged date of contempt. This Court had passed an ex parte interim order for short period i.e. till 21.04.2022 and the order was never extended thereafter. In addition, the averments that the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the schedule land is against the material evidence placed on suit record. As the respondents are in possession of the schedule land, the alleged interference is only chance petition with misleading facts in abuse of process of the Court. Thus the petition is devoid of merits.

6. These rival pleadings are given due consideration. This Court on 17.03.2002 in I.A.No.1 of 2018 passed the following order:

(cid:147)Notice. Personal notice is also permitted. List on 21.04.2022. Meanwhile, both parties are directed to maintain status quo over the schedule property, obtained as on today.(cid:148)

7. The crime petition acknowledgement filed by the petitioners, in the paper book reads as follows:

(cid:147)Complainant came to the police station and lodged a written complaint in telugu stating that complainant and 8 others sold Ac.07.04 guntas land in outskirts of Mulkalla village in Sy.No.86/1, 86d/2 and registered in our names. In view of the above matter, Dikonda(cid:146)s elder brother, father Narsaiah, residence Naspur colony, Mnadal Naspur, District Mancherial, I am complaining. I, the complainant, along with 8 other persons, in Hajipur mandal, Mulkalla suburb Sy.Nos.86/1, 86/2, area Ac.07.04 guntas of land was purchased and acquired in our name and later title was taken in our name.

There was a dispute between our nine people and Dega Rajam, father Poshan and 5 Guri regarding this land. Regarding this we filed a case in the Hon(cid:146)ble High Court of Tealangana through second appeal No.1753 of 2018 till the final judgment on 17.03.2022 and a status quo was given that none of the parties should step foot on the land in these survey numbers. Attached is the application submitterd to you on 13.04.2022.

But recently in defiance of Hon(cid:146)ble High C