logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 APHC 525 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Case No : Contempt Case No. 4632 of 2024
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD
Parties : Kamini Sreenu Versus Daivaadeenam, Tahsildar, T. Sundupalli Mandal, Annamayya & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Vutupalli Rajanna, Advocate. For the Respondents: Rama Chandra Rao Gurram, A. Jayanthi, Syed Khader Mastan, Advocates.
Date of Judgment : 02-04-2026
Head Note :-
Contempt of Courts Act 1971 - Sections 10 to 12 -
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Contempt of Courts Act 1971 (Sections 10 to 12)
- Civil Procedure Code (CPC) Section 151

2. Catch Words:
- Contempt
- Compensation/Fine
- Leniency
- Widow
- Damage to property
- Payment deadline

3. Summary:
The High Court heard a contempt petition filed under Sections 10‑12 of the Contempt of Courts Act and Section 151 CPC. Photographs and affidavits indicated that Respondent No. 3 wilfully violated the Court’s earlier order by damaging mango trees, stone pillars and iron fencing. The Court directed the petitioner to submit a detailed affidavit of loss, which was filed showing damages of Rs. 49,700. Considering the respondent’s widow status and unconditional apology, the Court imposed a reduced compensation of Rs. 45,000 instead of a three‑fold penalty and ordered payment within three weeks. No further costs were awarded, and the contempt proceedings were closed.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to may be pleased to direct notice to the respondents and punish the respondents under Section 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for willful violation of the orders of this Honourable court passed in W.P.No.20291 of 2024, dated 13-09-2024 by his Lordships Justice Gannamaneni Rama Krishna Prasad and pass such

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to implead the proposed respondent as Respondent No.4 in C.C.No.4632. of 2024 in W.P.No.20291 of 2024, dated 13-09-2024 in the interest of justice and pass)

Oral Order:

1. Sri Vutupalli Rajanna, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Syed Khadar Mastan, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.3.

2. The present Contempt Case proceedings have been initiated against the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. After this Court had perused the initial material, this Court had issued notices to the Respondents.

3. The photographs filed by the Petitioner along with Contempt Affidavit would indicate that the Respondent No.3 had willfully violated the orders of this Court, thereby rendered her acts to be contemptuous, in the view of this Court.

4. Various Affidavits have been filed by both the parties. This Court, having considered the said Affidavits had formed a prima facie opinion that Respondent No.3 had violated the Orders of this Court willfully and had damaged the Mango trees of different ages and also the stone pillars and the iron fencing.

5. Since the iron fencing can be readjusted, this Court had directed the Petitioner to file an Affidavit indicating the damage insofar as stone pillars are concerned and the Mango trees. The Petitioner has filed an Affidavit on 18.03.2026. Para-3 of the Affidavit dated 18.03.2026 would indicate the cost of all Mango trees, stone pillars and the expenditure incurred by the Petitioner for transportation as well as the labour totaling to Rs.49,700/-.

6. At the outset, this Court had indicated to the Respondent No.3 that she shall pay three times the amount of costs incurred by the Petitioner. However Sri Khadar Mastan, Ld. Counsel representing the Respondent No.3 would request this Court to take a lenient view since the Respondent No.3 is a widow and does not have proper means of livelihood and that she had tendered unconditional apology out of remorse. Having considered the same, this Court is of the view that the Respondent No.3 shall pay compensation/fine of Rs.45,000/- to the Petitioner in lieu of conviction and sentencing her to jail. It is indicated that this Court would not show any lenience henceforth if Respondent No.3 repeats such acts of Contempt of Court.

7. Ms. Kamineni Anjanamma (Respondent No.3), who is present in the Court, has requested this Court to grant four (04) weeks time for making the payment of Rs.45,000/- to the Petitioner. However, this Court is of the view that the amount should be paid within three (03) weeks from today.

8. With these observations and directions, this Contempt Case is closed. No order as to costs.

9. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.
 
  CDJLawJournal