Illuru Lakshmaiah, v. Sri Chandramouli,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.1580 of 2014 Dated : 30.01.2015 Between:

Illuru Lakshmaiah S/o.Krishna Murthy, Aged about 46 yrs, R/o.H.No.3-1356/1, Betamcherla, Kurnool District.

.. Petitioner And Sri Chandramouli, Sub-Registrar, Stamps & Registrar Department, Orvakallu, Kurnool District .. Respondent This Court made the following :

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.1580 of 2014 ORDER :

By order dated 28.04.2014 this Court in W.P.No.12877 of 2014 passed the following order :

"Considering the submissions of both the learned counsel, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Sub-Registrar, Orvakallu, Kurnool District (3rd respondent) to receive and process the documents presented by the petitioner without insisting upon such NOC and in the event the documents presented fulfil the requirements of the Registration Act, 1908, and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, he shall register and release the documents in accordance with the due procedure. However, if the 3rd respondent is of the opinion that the documents presented for registration warrant denial, he shall pass orders in writing indicating the reasons for such refusal and communicate the same to the party in accordance with Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908."

2. Alleging that when the petitioner approached the Sub-Registrar, Orvakallu, the Sub-Registrar refused to receive the document without assigning any reason, inspite of the orders passed by this Court, this contempt case is filed.

3. The respondent filed counter affidavit. In para 4 of the counter, it is clearly averred that the petitioner has neither approached the respondent nor presented any document before him.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader asserts that in the legal notice issued by the petitioner, it is not stated as to when the document was presented by the petitioner and inspite of presentation of document, the respondent has refused to receive and process.

5. Having regard to the said assertions in the counter affidavit, and since there is no proof in support of the claim that the document was presented in pursuant to the orders of this Court, I see no justification to proceed against the respondent under the Contempt of Courts Act.

6. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. It is always open to the petitioner to approach the registering authority in accordance with the directions issued by this Court. There shall be no order as to costs.

7. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Contempt Case shall stand closed.

__________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J 30th January, 2015 Rds