Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Tammisetti Venu Gopal filed reply affidavit dated 01.08.2017 in response to the aforestated additional affidavit dated 25.07.2017 of the second respondent-Tahsildar. Therein, he pointed out that neither in the alleged proceedings dated 20.11.2015 nor in his earlier counter-affidavit, the second respondent-Tahsildar had stated that N.Venugopal Reddy, the GPA holder, appeared on behalf of Pindi Rama Krishna Reddy and it was only when he asserted that Pindi Rama Krishna Reddy had not even appeared on 01.08.2015, that the second respondent-Tahsildar took the present stand that he was represented by his GPA holder, N.Venugopal Reddy. He pointed out that even in the alleged proceedings dated 20.11.2015, the second respondent-Tahsildar had noted that Pindi Rama Krishna Reddy had appeared before him. He further stated that it was absolutely false to state that he was not residing in his given address. He asserted that he had given his door number and address correctly and it was only with a view to cover up his lapse that the second respondent-Tahsildar claimed otherwise. Be it noted that Tammisetti Venu Gopal misunderstood the statement made by the second respondent-Tahsildar as to the filing of a caveat and asserted that he had not filed any such caveat as he needed to file a civil suit and not a caveat in terms of the alleged proceedings dated 20.11.2015. He also contested the claim of the second respondent-Tahsildar as to why there was a delay on his part. Pointing out that no documents had been filed to prove that he was involved in and was busy with official duties, he asserted that the contempt case was filed well within limitation as the second respondent- Tahsildar had continued to hear the case till August, 2015 but failed to pass any order. He therefore claimed that limitation began only from August, 2015 and that the contempt case filed in January, 2016 was not time-barred.

It may be noted that the cause for filing of C.C.No.1231 of 2016 was the complaint of Tammisetti Venu Gopal that no order had been passed pursuant to the judgment dated 25.07.2014 passed in the writ appeal. The said judgment fixed a time frame for passing an order. Therefore, not only failure to adhere to the time frame but also the failure in passing an order would amount to disobedience. Expiry of the stipulated time frame on 15.11.2014 is therefore relevant only for the purpose of reckoning the disobedience in failing to abide by such time frame and has no bearing on compliance with the direction to pass an order on fresh consideration. The failure to pass an order would give rise to a continuing contempt as long as no order is passed. Filing of the contempt case in January, 2016, complaining that no order had been passed till then was therefore within time, despite the expiry of the stipulated time frame in November, 2014. The alternative plea advanced by Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel, is equally meritorious. The second respondent-Tahsildar admittedly heard the case till August, 2015 and therefore, the contempt case filed in January, 2016, complaining that he had not passed any order thereafter is not beyond the period of one year therefrom. C.C.No.1231 of 2016 is therefore not barred by limitation.