ORDER
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. The petitioner herein filed O.S.No.227 of 1990 against Ch.Krishnavenamma and T.Lakshman Rao, in the Court of First Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,71,419/-. Krishnavenamma, the 1st defendant, was the original borrower and Lakshman Rao, the 2nd defendant, was the guarantor. The suit was decreed for a sum of Rs.1,38,452/- on 04-08-1999. Both the defendants filed A.S.No.3112 of 1999, before this Court. An order of stay of execution of the decree was passed on 13-03-2000, on condition that the defendants-appellants deposit half of the decreetal amount, within a period of six weeks.
2. On the ground that the said condition was not complied with, petitioner filed E.P.No.56 of 2001. Since the 2nd defendant died, his sons, the respondents herein, were brought on record. Though the attachment of immovable property was sought, the executing Court, namely the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, passed an order dated 19-03-2002, attaching two buses of the respondents. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents filed C.R.P.No.1264 of 2002 in this Court. Through an order dated 13-07-2002, this Court disposed of the C.R.P, directing that the attachment of the two vehicles shall continue, the petitioners therein shall not dispose of the vehicles and that the executing Court shall decide the matter expeditiously after receiving the evidence of the parties.
3. Petitioner herein filed Contempt Case No.82 of 2003 alleging that despite the orders of this Court in C.R.P., the respondents have disposed of the vehicles. On hearing both the parties, this Court took the view that the respondents have disposed of their respective vehicles much before the orders in the C.R.P and have replaced them with two new vehicles for operating on the routes. This Court closed the Contempt Case with certain observations through order dated 04-04-2003.
This Contempt Case is filed alleging that the respondents have once again disposed of the new vehicles, and thereby committed contempt of Court. Sri E.Phani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that there is a clear observation by this Court that the vehicles newly acquired by the respondents are subject to the same conditions that existed in respect of the old vehicles and disposal of the same amounts to contempt of Court.
4. Sri Gangaiah Naidu, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that there is nothing in the order in C.C.No.82 of 2003 to disclose that the vehicles were subjected to attachment.
5. The contention of the petitioner is that the alienation of the vehicles bearing Nos.TN 57 Z 4044 and AP30 T 5225 by respondents 1 and 2 respectively amounts to violation and contempt of orders of this Court in C.C.No.82 of 2003. The fact that the said vehicles were alienated is not in dispute. Therefore, it needs to be seen as to whether there was any prohibition imposed by this Court against respondents herein from alienating the said vehicles. Contempt proceedings, being quasi criminal in nature, clear case needs to be made out to punish the contemnors.
6. From a perusal of the record and the facts stated in the preceding paragraphs, it is evident that the executing Court attached two vehicles belonging to the respondents namely AP 30 T 3555 and AP 35 T 2442. Respondents filed C.R.P. No.1264 of 2002. This Court took note of the fact that the respondents are legal heirs of the guarantor to a money transaction and the E.P itself was filed seeking attachment of immovable properties. It was thought fit that, instead of expressing any opinion as to the legality of the orders of the executing Court, the claim itself be decided finally. To protect the interests of the parties, it was directed that the attachment shall continue and the respondents shall not alienate the vehicles.
7. Petitioner filed C.C.No.82 of 2003 alleging that the respondents alienated the vehicles. In that C.C, it emerged that the respondents have replaced their old vehicles with new ones for operating in the routes, and as such, replacement took place much before the order of this Court in the C.R.P. The C.C was accordingly closed. Now, the respondents have once again replaced their vehicles. Such a course of action would have constituted contempt , if only this Court prohibited the alienation of the said vehicles.
8. The petitioner, itself realised that it did not have any right against the vehicles acquired by the respondents viz., TN 57 Z 4044 and AP30 T 5225, and that it had a right to proceed against the vehicles by filing an appropriate application. The same is evident from the following observation of this Court in the order in C.C.No.82 of 2003.
“In any case, it is the claim of the petitioner herein, who is the Financier, that he has got a right to proceed against those vehicles for execution of the decree, which is directed to be adjudicated by the executing Court, and that the newly substituted vehicles by the judgment debtors 4 and 5 in the place of their old vehicles, which were attached by the executing Court by its order dated 19-03-2002 are available”.
The only portion of the order on which the petitioner relies upon to contend that these vehicles were also subjected to prohibition as to alienation, reads as under:
“If the petitioner succeeds in his claim, he can proceed against the judgment debtors 4 and 5 by way of attachment and sale of the above referred vehicles. Therefore, the newly substituted vehicles of the Judgment debtors 4 and 5 are subject to the further orders of the executing Court as directed by this Court in the order in C.R.P The executing Court is directed to adjudicate the matter expeditiously. With the above observations and directions, the contempt case is closed”.
9. From this, it is evident that there was no direction prohibiting the respondents herein from alienating the vehicles. The first sentence of the above passage discloses that the right of the petitioner against the said vehicles would depend on the adjudication of its claim. In the second sentence, this aspect was made amply clear. Therefore, till an order is passed by the executing Court, the question of there being any restriction on the respondents to deal with their vehicles did not arise. This being the position, there is absolutely no justification on the part of the petitioner to subject the respondents to face the contempt proceedings. The proceeding sheet discloses that the respondents were made to appear before this Court on several occasions and required to comply with several conditions. The fact that the petitioner has chosen to proceed against the legal representatives of a guarantor, that too, against the movable properties acquired by them, leaving asid!
e the principal debtor, discloses a prima facial lack of bona fides on their part. Hence, the contempt case is closed by imposing costs of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only), to be paid to the respondents equally.