CHAGANTIPATI MURALIDHAR Vs. CHAGANTIPATI NANDINI KISHORE BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This contempt case under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short the Act) is filed by petitioner herein against one Chagantipati Nandini Kishore Babu/fifth respondent in Civil Revision Petition No.6565 of 2012, with a request to call for record and punish contemnor/respondent herein (fifth respondent in C.R.P 6565 of 2012) for his willful, wanton and deliberate violation of order dated 01.02.2018, alleging that the petitioner challenged the order passed in C.M.A No.3 of 2009 by V Addl. District Judge, Vijayawada dated 27.09.2012 in Civil Revision Petition No.6565 of 2012 under Article 227 of The Constitution of India, wherein V Addl. District Judge, Vijayawada confirmed the order dated 19.01.2009 passed in I.A No. 2104 of 2008 in O.S No.1219 of 2008 passed by Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District. This Court disposed of Civil Revision Petition, setting aside the decree and decreetal order dated 27.09.2012 in C.M.A 3 of 2009 passed by V Addl. District Judge at Vijayawada and order in I.A No.2104 of 2008 in O.S No.1219 of 2008, remanded the matter to Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, directing to restore the interlocutory application No.2104 of 2008 in O.S No.1219 of 2008 to its original number in the register and dispose off the same as expeditiously as possible, in any even not later than three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order, while directing both parties, to maintain status quo till the disposal of interlocutory application.

(2.) After remand of the matter, Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, restored I.A No.2104 of 2008 in O.S No.1219 of 2008 to its original number, in interlocutory applications register, but did not dispose off the interlocutory application. In the meanwhile, respondent herein(fifth respondent in Civil Revision Petition No.6565 of 2012), started unauthorized construction, on 15.01.2019, in utter disobedience or violation of the order of status quo, granted by this court, to support the same, filed positive photographs of construction.

(3.) Petitioner got issued legal notice dated 08.03.2019 to respondent herein, for willful and deliberate violation of the order of this Court, the notice was returned with endorsement "enquired 08.03.2019 to 13.03.2019 addressee not known hence, returned to the sender". If there is any change of address, during the proceedings, pending before the court, it is the duty of the party, concerned to inform the same to the court by filing a memo, giving notice to the other side in terms of Order VI, Rule 14 of Civil Procedure Code (for short C.P.C). But for one reason or the other, the respondent did not inform the address particulars to the Court, thereby, petitioner could not effect actual service of notice on respondent, again issued another notice dated 04.04.2019 to the known address, but the same was returned with postal endorsement "12.04.2019 informed". Therefore, it shall be presumed that notice is served, in view of Section 27 of General Clauses Act and presumption under Section 114 of The Evidence Act.