APHC010532092024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3508] WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CONTEMPT APPEAL NO: 176/2024 Between: Botta Someswara Rao ...APPLICANT AND The Special Deputy Collector ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Applicant: 1. A K KISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. RAMA RAO KOCHIRI The Court made following the Judgment: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The appellant herein had approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.36762 of 2022, contending that the respondent herein was seeking to dispossess him from property admeasuring an extent of 107 sq. yards each, in plot Nos.561 and 560, in Survey No.23, popularly 2 known as Appikonda Colony, Vadlapudi R.H.C, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. A learned Single Judge of this Court had granted an interim direction, dated 14.11.2022. The interim direction was an order of status quo. Subsequently, the respondent herein had filed a petition to vacate the interim order, dated 14.11.2022. A learned Single Judge, while granting time for filing reply, had directed, on 19.09.2023, that the appellant shall not make any constructions in the subject matter property and would maintain status quo existing on that date in all respects. 2. The respondent herein lodged a complaint, dated 26.06.2023, with the Inspector of Police, Duvvada Police Station contending that the appellant was continuing to make constructions despite the orders of the learned Single Judge, dated 14.11.2022 and 19.09.2023. The Inspector of Police refused to interfere on the ground that the dispute was a civil dispute. Thereupon, the respondent had issued a notice, dated 18.07.2023, to the appellant calling upon the appellant to stop further construction in view of the orders of the Court, dated 14.11.2022. 3. The respondent had thereupon approached the learned Single Judge, by way of C.C.No.4241 of 2023, with the complaint that 3 the appellant, has continued to make constructions in the site, despite the orders of the Court and despite the respondent issuing notices to the appellant to stop construction. 4. A learned Single Judge of this Court, after hearing both sides and considering the material placed before him, had allowed the Contempt Case, by an order, dated 12.11.2024, holding the appellant guilty of contempt of Court and sentenced the appellant to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months apart from paying a fine of Rs.2,000/-, within a period of two weeks, and to suffer further simple imprisonment for a period of two weeks in the event of default in payment of fine. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed the present appeal before this Court. 6. Heard Sri A.K. Kishore Reedy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rama Rao Kochiri, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. It is the contention of the appellant that the appellant had not made any further constructions beyond the orders of status quo. However, the learned Single Judge had held that the photographs produced by the respondent herein, showed further construction work even after 14.11.2022 or 19.09.2023. The learned Single Judge had 4 held that the photographs dated 19.07.2023 and 18.11.2023 would show that construction work was going on, in the site, despite the orders of status quo granted by the Court. The learned Single Judge also relied upon the photographs, dated 01.02.2024, to hold that the building was partially completed by that date and the subsequent position shows that the building has been fully completed and the property had given out on lease to tenants. The learned Single Judge also took into account the fact that tenants had been inducted into the property. 7. The appellant, in the counter affidavit filed in the Contempt Case, had contended that the construction walls of the entire building had been completed by 26.10.2022 and the building had been occupied by the date of status quo order passed on 14.11.2022 itself. The learned Single Judge pointed out that the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, on 09.11.2022, did not contain any such averment and the absence of such an averment, which would have been crucial for the case of the appellant, can only be construed to mean that the construction activity had not been completed by 14.11.2022. 5 8. In view of the above findings of fact, by the learned Single Judge, we do not find any reason to deviate from these findings nor find any reason to interfere with the orders of a learned Single Judge. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant, relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balwantbhai Somabhai Bandari vs. Hiralal Somabhai Contractor (Deceased) Rep. by L.Rs and Others,1 specific reference was made to paragraph No.100. However, paragraphs 101 and 102 also throw light on the view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in cases of violation of the orders of the Court and they are extracted herein below: 100. We now proceed to consider the question as regards the acceptance of apology. It is pertinent to note at this stage that all throughout the proceedings before the High Court, the stance of the appellants was that they committed a big mistake by executing the sale deeds despite having given a clear-cut undertaking to the court that they would not do so. By and large, from the averments in the various affidavits filed by the appellants over a period of time; referred to by the High Court in its judgment, the stance had been that the appellants should not have defied the order of the High Court and are extremely sorry in that regard. In such circumstances, the appellants pleaded before the high Court that their apology may be accepted and they may be discharged from the proceedings. 101. We may take judicial notice of the fact with all humility at out command that over a period of time, the courts have shown undue leniency and magnanimity towards the contemnors. This lenient attitude shown by the courts over a period of time has actually emboldened unscrupulous litigants to disobey or commit breach of the order passed by any court or any undertaking given to the court with impunity. 1 (2023) 11 S.C.R 1064 : 2023 INSC 805 6 102. The litigants, proceeded for contempt of court have realized that they have a very potent weapon in their hands in the form of apology. Take for instance, the present case itself. What do the appellant want us to do? The appellants want this court to accept their apology and set aside the order of punishment and sentence passed by the High Court. There ought not to be a tendency by courts to show compassion when disobedience of an undertaking or an order is with impunity and with total consciousness. 10. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Contempt Appeal is dismissed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J _______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J RJS 7 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO & HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CONTEMPT APPEAL NO.176 OF 2024 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Dt: 19.02.2025 RJS