APHC010259892024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2722/2024 Between: Smt. Raketla Mimun Bhee ...PETITIONER AND Sri P Arun Babu and Others ...CONTEMNOR(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S PARINEETA Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. K M KRISHNA REDDY 2. M R K CHAKRAVARTHY The Court made the following: ORDER: This Contempt Case is filed under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for the willful disobedience of the orders dated 29.02.2024 passed in W.P.No.5210 of 2024. 2. Heard Ms.Parineeta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dilip Nayak, learned counsel for contemnor Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Chetan Suseel, learned counsel representing learned counsel for respondent No.4. 2 3. Ms.S.Parineeta, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court passed interim orders in W.P.No.5210 of 2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2024 granting status quo. In spite of the order of status quo, the respondent No.4 has alienated the subject property executed gift deed in favour of her husband and by taking into consideration the said gift deed, the Tahsildar has mutated respondent No.4 husband’s name in the revenue records, violating the orders of status quo. In view of the same, the authorities are liable for punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 4. On the other hand, Sri Dilip Nayak, learned counsel contended that the order of status quo is granted for a limited period i.e., till the next date of hearing and thereafter it was not extended. Even otherwise, the registered gift deed is being registered by the sub registrar office and the website automatically mutated the name of the person concerned in the revenue records. In view of the same, there is no disobedience on the part of the respondent as alleged by the petitioner. 5. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of status quo has not been extended, however, she has instructions that the petitioner and respondent No.4 have settled the matter outside the Court. 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides. 7. Admittedly, the status quo orders passed by this Court has not been extended. Further, as contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that once a document is registered in the sub registrar office, the name will be 3 automatically mutated in the revenue records. However, when the status quo orders are not been extended, the petitioner cannot say that the authorities have violated the orders of status quo. Hence, there is no contempt as alleged by the petitioner. In view of the same, the contempt case is liable to be closed. 8. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 13th March, 2025 RKS