Case Note & Summary
The contempt case arose from an appeal pending before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. The petitioners were the plaintiffs in O.S.No.139 of 2009 on the file of V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, which was decreed partly on 06.09.2017, declaring their share in item Nos.1 and 2 of plaint A schedule property. Respondent No.2 and another deceased person, as defendants, filed A.S.No.1280 of 2017 against that decree. In that appeal, respondent No.2 filed I.A.No.1 of 2021 seeking return of original documents marked as Exs.B2 to B7. The court allowed the application on 16.07.2021 subject to conditions, including that the applicants shall not create third-party rights over the suit schedule properties or alter the same based on those documents, and shall not pledge or mortgage the original documents. Respondent No.2 then filed I.A.No.2 of 2021 seeking modification to permit pledging of original documents before a nationalised bank, which was dismissed on 04.08.2022. Despite these orders, respondent No.2 allegedly created a mortgage by depositing original documents with Tirupati Co-operative Bank Limited for item No.1 of plaint A schedule property through Mortgage Deed document No.4299 of 2023 dated 07.08.2023, and subsequently sold item No.1 to third parties under registered sale deed document No.25358 of 2024 dated 10.12.2024 during pendency of the appeal. The petitioners filed Contempt Case No.1636 of 2025 alleging willful disobedience of the interim order. The High Court passed orders on 12.11.2025, 15.12.2025, and 23.12.2025, directing service, response, and personal appearance of respondent No.2. The legal issues centered on whether respondent No.2's actions constituted willful disobedience of the interim order and violated Order XIII Rule 9 CPC conditions. The excerpt provided does not include the final operative decision; the matters discussed show the court examining procedural compliance and the alleged breach. The case references listed include 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1252, (2009) 4 SCC 213, 2023(2) ALD 693 (AP), 2016(1) ALD 579 (DB), (2013) 14 SCC 127, (1984) 3 SCC 405, (2007) 11 SCC 374, and (2014) 7 SCC 280.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court - Wilful Disobedience - Interim Order Restraining Third-Party Rights - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XIII Rule 9 - Respondent No.2 was allowed return of original documents subject to conditions not to create third-party rights or pledge/mortgage them; he allegedly mortgaged and sold item No.1 of plaint A schedule property in violation; court noted the act of disobedience (Paras 5-9). Held that violation of conditional interim order can constitute contempt. B) Civil Procedure - Return of Documents - Conditions for Return under Order XIII Rule 9 CPC - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XIII Rule 9 - Court allowed return of original documents only upon furnishing certified copies and with undertakings; modification application to pledge documents was rejected on 04.08.2022; court reiterated conditions (Paras 5-7). Held that return of documents is conditional and parties must comply with restrictions. C) Contempt Proceedings - Procedural Requirements - Notice and Personal Appearance - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XIII Rule 9 (context) - Court directed service, response, and personal appearance of respondent No.2; orders dated 12.11.2025, 15.12.2025, 23.12.2025 recorded proceedings and directed appearance (Paras 11-12). Held that contemnor must appear and respond to allegations.
Issue of Consideration
Whether respondent No.2 willfully disobeyed interim order dated 16.07.2021 by mortgaging and selling suit schedule property despite conditions restraining third-party rights and pledging of documents.
Law Points
- Contempt jurisdiction requires willful disobedience
- interim order conditions bind parties
- Order XIII Rule 9 CPC permits return of documents with conditions
- breach of undertaking may constitute contempt
- court may direct personal appearance
