{"id":43597,"date":"1967-07-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1967-07-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kruthiventi-kutumba-rao-vs-muthi-venkata-subba-rao-and-ors-on-18-july-1967"},"modified":"2019-01-09T22:54:02","modified_gmt":"2019-01-09T17:24:02","slug":"kruthiventi-kutumba-rao-vs-muthi-venkata-subba-rao-and-ors-on-18-july-1967","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kruthiventi-kutumba-rao-vs-muthi-venkata-subba-rao-and-ors-on-18-july-1967","title":{"rendered":"Kruthiventi Kutumba Rao vs Muthi Venkata Subba Rao And Ors. on 18 July, 1967"},"content":{"rendered":"
Andhra High Court<\/div>\n
Kruthiventi Kutumba Rao vs Muthi Venkata Subba Rao And Ors. on 18 July, 1967<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: AIR 1969 AP 47, 1969 CriLJ 149<\/div>\n
Author: J Reddy<\/div>\n
Bench: P J Reddy, Venkatesam<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
 Jaganmohan  Reddy, C.J.  <\/p>\n
1. This  is a petition to commit Respondents Nos. 1 to 6 for contempt for violating the orders of the District Munsif, Vijayawada, by obstructing the Advocate Commissioner Sr. P. V. Rama Sarma while performing the duties directed in the warrant issued to him in I. A. No. 179\/67 in O. S. No. 78\/67, that it for seizing the account books and papers ( items 1 to 19) mentioned in the petition and to file the same in the court<\/p>\n
 2.  The petitioner is founder member of Sri Velidendla Hanumantharaya Grandhalayam which was  founded in the year 1934 in memory  of the late Mr.  Velidendla Hanumantha Rao. He is  also the Secretary for a long time  and the joint secretary of the Executive Treasurer of the library. In 1944 the library was registered  as No. 2\/44 under the Societies Act, and he is  one of the persons who had subscribed  to the memorandum of Association. In 1964, during the General Body Meeting the strength  of the Executive  was increased by providing for one president, three-vice presidents one General Secretary, three Assistant Secretaries, one Treasurer and 16 members, in total not exceeding 25. The present Executive committee of the library is  elected on 9-2-64. The term of office of the Committee was two years, and one Pothina Gurunatha Banergi was elected as General Secretary. The petitioner filed  O. S. No. 78\/67 on the file  of the District Munsif, Vijayawada for a permanent injunction  restraining the Secretary from functioning as secretary of the Executive Committee alleging that the secretary mismanaged the affairs of the library. It is stated in the plaint that he did not keep the accounts  properly and failed to convene the General Body Meeting for electing the New Executive  for the last one year and  that the library funds running into several thousands of rupees were misappropriated and mismanaged. The petitioner filed I. A. no. 179\/67 for appointing an advocate as a commissioner to make an inventory of the Account Books, Bank Books, Cheque Books, Minute Books and all other records of the library and file them in the Court. On this I. A.  a warrant dated 4-3-67 was issued  to seize items 1 to 19 mentioned in the petition and file them in Court with an inventory.\n<\/p>\n
 On 5-3-67 a commissioner was appointed who with the help of Respondents Nos. 4 and 5, the Head Constable and Police Constable respectively of Law and order , V Town Police Station , Vijayawada went to the library at 3.15 p. m. along with the commissioner, the petitioner and his advocates, Sri.  S. Rama Krishna and Sri. P. L. Narayana, entered the office room of the library. Respondent No. 1 is the librarian, Respondents No. 2 the Treasurer, and Respondents No. 3  the Secretary of the Building Construction  Committee of the Library. The Advocate Commissioner in his report has stated that accompanied by the petitioner and his advocate Sri. P. L.  Narayana he went to law and Order No. 5 Town Police Station , Vijayawada at about 2-30. p.m.  and produce the letter for help. Taking the assistance  the Respondents No. 4 and 5 he proceeded  to the Library along with  them and the plaintiff’s counsel Sri. P. L.  Narayana and reached  there at about 3.15 p. m. They went to  the 2nd floor where the office  room is situated. In the office room  of the Grandhalayam, the 1st respondent was found sitting in a chair before the desk. The Commissioner had shown the warrant to him and asked about the Respondent. Then the 1st Respondent called  one Bujeti Jagannadha Rao  and pretended to make enquiries about the respondents and ultimately he told the Commissioner that the respondent was not available. Thereupon the Commissioner drafter a notice intimating  his intention to proceed with the commission work and asked him to co-operate and take the notice. The 1st respondent  took the notice and endorsed the same and thereafter he asked the commissioner  to wait for some time so that he may contact the President of the Grandhalayam, V. Jagan Mohan Rao and Treasurer by name P. Kesava Rao the 2nd respondent on hone. After he returned from the  telephone, he produced some account books and receipt books relating to the present period which  were readily available on the table itself. He said that some account books were in the iron safe but the keys of the iron safe were with the treasurer, the 2nd respondent.\n<\/p>\n
 3.  The Commissioner prepared an inventory list in respect of the books produce before him.  In the meantime the 2nd respondent came there. He raised objections and disputed the powers of the commissioner. The commissioner asked him to open the locks of the Iron Sage  as the keys are with him, but the 2nd respondents refused to do so. The commissioner told him  that he  was going to take steps  for breaking open the locks of the Iron Safe in connection with executing the warrant. After this, he sent for a lock repairer. After the lock repairer by name Shaik Rahim Rallah came, the secretary of the building Construction Committee of the Grandhalayam and some of his men also came there. In the presence of the Head Constable Petitioner and his advocates Sri. S. Ramakrishna  and Sri. P. L. Narayana who were with the Commissioner as well as the mediators Sri A. Sri Rama Murthy , Sri. C. L. Mrutyunjaya, Sri. M. V. Subba Rao, and Kesava Rao, the Commissioner directed the lock repairer to open the lock of the iron safe. After the lock repairer opened the door of the iron safe, some  account books,  printed receipts books etc., were found in the iron safe and the Commissioner prepared inventory of the same. On all the documents inventoried  and listed by him the Commissioner put his signature and numbered the same. After preparing the inventory  list, he gave a copy to the clerk, the 1st respondent and told him that he was going to take the documents with  him. But the 2nd and 3rd respondents advised the Commissioner not to take the list and they did not allow him to take the inventoried documents. The police constables refused to give help and assistance and they left the place saying that the circle Inspector of Police Sri. Sirgaraju, Respondent No, 6 asked them to go away.\n<\/p>\n
 Thereafter, according to the Commissioner, he sough help from the Police Control Room when a few of them came. Then also Respondents No, 1, 2, and 3 and their men obstructed him from executing the warrant and prevented him from getting the inventories documents which were bundled and placed on  the table. As he found much pressure by the persons gathered there who were restraining  him to execute the warrant, the Commissioner had telephoned to the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Vijayawada Town seeking proper police assistance but he could not  contact him as it was reported that he was not at home. IN the meantime the Circle Inspector, the 6th respondent came there and stationed in from t of the Grandhalayam in a jeep car, and instructed  the police that have come from  the police Control  Room to leave the place. As there was no help from the police and there was great pressure and force from the said persons obstructing and preventing the  execution of the warrant, he could not get the documents listed and inventoried by him and the same were left in the Grandhalayam Office Room under the control of  the aforesaid people namely Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and their men. the Commissioner took the signatures of the mediators who were present throughout the proceedings, on the inventory list and on other proceedings after that they left  the place at about 6-30. p. m.\n<\/p>\n
 4.  In front of the Grandhalayam, the 6th respondent who was there in a jeep car, called him . The commissioner explained to him the situation and asked him for sufficient help and assistance without caring for his words, he threatened the Commissioner saying the he would prosecute him fro calling help and assistance from the police control room. As he had no police aid to get the books, and the 6th respondent threatened him to prosecute and refused to give help and protection he had to leave the place. Respondents   Nos. 1 to 3 threatened him to leave the inventory list as well as the Commission warrant at the Grandhalayam office, but, however, the Commissioner says he was able to come out only with inventory list.\n<\/p>\n
 5.  The he went to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada Town and waited at his residence till about 12-30 in the night to report the matter to him. As soon as he came, he gave a report about the situation  and sought his help and protection. He asked the Commissioner to ring up at 10.45 a. m.  the next morning. Accordingly he went to see him but could not get him  as he had just left his house. Again he tried to contact at 12-40 noon but he did not return home by then. Then the Commissioner prepared inventory list as per the warrant and could not get the documents inventoried  and file them as he was prevented by force as stated earlier.  On 7-3-67 the Court gave a further order directing  him to take sufficient police assistance from  the Assistance Superintendent of Police, Vijayawada, under a letter of requisition  issued by the Court in connection with the execution of the Commission warrant.  The commissioner served  the notice on the Petitioner’s advocate, Sri Rama Krishna, stating that he would proceed to execute the warrant between 3 p. m.  and 6 p. m.  on 8-3-67. After obtaining  the said letter of requisition  at about 4 p. m.  on 7-3-67 the petitioner attempted many times to contact the A. S. P. but could not  get him  till 12-30 noon on 8-3-67. At about  12-30 on 8-3-67 he went to the A. S. P’s bungalow, met him and gave the envelope  containing the letter of requisition  to him. Thereupon  the  A. S. P.  directed the sub-Inspector of Police,  Law & order No. v. Police Station  to give sufficient help by endorsing the direction of the letter given by the Court itself and asked him to  show the same to the said Sub-Inspector of Police, Accompanied by the petitioner and his advocate, Sri. P. L. Narayana, the Commissioner went to the law and Order No. V police station and produced the letter for help at about 4.15 p,. m.  Thereupon, A. S. I.  Law & order,, No. V Town Police Station  P. Cs. 1481, 1758 and 572 were debuted  to help him in executing the warrant.\n<\/p>\n
 6. Accompanied by the police, the petitioner and his advocate, the commissioner went to the Grandhalayam at about 4-35 p. m.   and reached the 2nd floor where the office room is situated and where he had on 5-3-67, under forcible circumstances, left the documents inventoried by him. But he found that the doors of the office  were closed and locked with a Godrej Lock. The he called the watchman and made inquiries as to with whom the keys of the locks are kept. The watchman told him that the keys of the office rooms were  with the clerk, the 1st respondent and that he did not know about his whereabouts. then the advocate for the petitioner, Sri. P. L. Narayana requested the Commissioner by way of a memo to break open  the lock and enter the office room and execute the warrant or to put a seal until further directions by the court.  But the commission warrant did not provide for breaking open  the locks of the rooms of premises or to put a seal the same, and the express authorisation given was only to break open the locks of the shelves, almyrahs etc., the Commission r told him the he could not concede to his request. As the office room was found locked and the persons with whom the keys were available had not been forthcoming, the Commissioner was prevented from executing  the warrant and ultimately he left the place at about 5 p. m.\n<\/p>\n
 7.  On 27-3-67, the commissioner another report which  was re-issued to him with direction, on  17-3-67 about 12 noon, and this time it was to break open the lock of the room. He went to the premises on 19-3-67 along with petitioner and his advocate Sri P. L. Narayana and three police constables, he reached  the place at about 9-20 a. m.  There he found that the doors of the office  room were open and 1st respondent, the clerk was present. The commissioner asked him to  produce the documents inventoried by him on 5-3-67 and other account books  etc. but they were not produced. When he asked the clerk, the 1st respondent to open the iron safe and show him  whether there are any inventoried  documents in it, he open d it but none of the documents inventoried by him or any other account books were found therein. The 1st respondent told them  that on 6-3-97 at about 9 a. m.  the petitioner and his sons went to the Grandhalayam and asked him to give the documents  inventoried by the Commissioner. Thereupon he gave the said documents  to the petitioners on 6-3-97 and they have taken them away. Thus the 1st respondent said that the documents inventoried by the \/commissioner were not available in the Grandhalayam. Therefore the Commissioner left the office at about 9-45 a.m. <\/p>\n
 8.  The petitioner alleged that respondents No. 1 to 3  obstructed the Commissioner from seizing account books etc. as per the orders of the court and produce them before the court, with help of the mob that gathered there and with the active assistance of Respondents  NO. 4 to 6 who colluded with Respondents No.. 1 to 3 removed the books from the office  of the library and secreted them. The 6th respondent, the Town Circle Inspector who has a duty to carry out the order of the court and to uphold the dignity of the court, instead of helping the Commissioner to do his duty aided respondents 1 to 3  who are  very influential people by asking Respondents 4 and 5, the Head Constable and Police Constable respectively to lave the office of the library thus putting the Commissioner at the mercy of Respondents 1 to 3 and also threatening the Commissioner that he would be prosecuted. Virtually the Circle Inspector i.e., the 6th Respondent, hand-in-glove with Respondents  1 to 3 caused the disappearance of the books etc., which were inventoried.\n<\/p>\n
 9.  We will examine the defence of Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 on the one hand the Respondents Nos. 4 to 6 on the other as their combined acts have to be looked into  in order to ascertain what was their conduct and whether they amount to contempt of the orders of the court.  Respondent No. 1 denying the allegations of the petitioner says  that he gave full co-operation  to the Commissioner throughout and, therefore, he is not liable to  contempt. While not denying the details given in the report of the Commissioner he says that when he telephoned and enquired about the Secretary in the presence of the Commissioner on 5-3-67, he was informed that he went to Hyderabad and, therefore, he immediately informed the same to the Commissioner . the allegation that he pretended to make  inquires as mentioned in  the interim report of the commissioner is denied by him. He  has stated that the Commissioner served notice on him stating  that he would  take steps to execute the warrant entrusted to him. He received the notice and told the commissioner that he was only the clerk in the office and so he sought his permission  to inform the purpose  of his  coming etc., to the president and Treasurer s the secretary was out of station. Then he  informed them on telephone and produced the books relating to the present period as they were then readily available on the table itself. He informed the Commissioner that the remaining account books asked for were in the iron safe and keys of the iron safe were with the Treasurer Sri. P. kesava Rao, the 2nd Respondent. Some time later, the Treasurer, the 2nd respondent came there when the Commissioner asked him to open he locks  of the iron safe. The Treasurer informed the Commissioner that the keys of the same  were with the secretary and further asked  the Commissioner as to how he was empowered to  seize the account books. The commissioner showed him the warrant and on a perusal  of the same the 2nd respondent stated that there was absolutely no mention of Sri Velidandla Hanumantharaya Grandhalayam but, however, he assured the Commissioner that he would co-operate with him.\n<\/p>\n
 It is not denied that the Commissioner got the lock of the iron safe broken open. He took out from it the  account books and the printed receipt books in the immediate presence of the Treasurer, the 2nd respondent and the secretary of the Building construction Committee, the 3rd respondent, who happened to come by that time. subsequent to the seizure of the documents, the commissioner prepared an inventory and put his signature  on all the documents and numbered the same. He has  stated that the allegation that Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 advised him not to take the list and did not allow the commissioner to take inventoried  documents is not correct. After preparation of the inventory and affixure of the signatures, Respondent No. 2 made a request to the commissioner that the documents might be kept in iron safe under the seal of the Commissioner  and also the protection of police. if necessary, till the arrival  of the President and Secretary when the commissioner might take  the same as required. But the allegation that they obstructed  the warrant, according  to him, is not correct. Even after the police from the Control Room came at the instance of the plaintiff’s counsel, a request  was made by the 2nd respondent once again  to keep the books etc. in the Grandhalayam premises till the President and Secretary came. He has stated that the Respondents never obstructed  the Commissioner  from executing  the warrant but on  the other hand they gave  him their utmost  co-operation. Again he has stated that what they requested him was to see that the documents were retained in the office till the President or Secretary came out, nothing more. They never indulged in threats or obstruction, and on the other hand, they appealed to the Commissioner and protection of the police if necessary. It was also contended by the 1st respondent that the appointment of the Commissioner for the seizure of the account books was null and void and therefore, the alleged obstruction, even if  it is assumed to be true to any extent, does not tantamount to contempt of Court Further the Court issuing  the Commissioner did not order notice to the defendant  in the suit in the course of passing the order of appointment of the Commissioner and since  such order violates the mandatory provisions of Order 26, Rule 18 Civil Procedure Code, it is submitted that it is null and void  and obstruction to the commissioner wound not amount to contempt and  that the report of the Commissioner made under such circumstances cannot be considered as piece of evidence or acted upon as desired by the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
 10. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 also support these documents and took similar objections. It will be  seen from these three affidavits  that while respondents  1 to 3 deny that they cause any obstruction, none-the -less they cannot hide the fact which is asserted by the Commissioner in his report as also  by the petitioner his affidavit that the books  and documents along with the inventories were asked to be left in the office premises and were not  allowed to be taken. It appears to us that the alleged requests of the respondents  that the documents  etc. be left  there till the arrival of  the president  etc. are misnomers, and they amount to  falsely state that the Commissioner and much less the petitioner to falsely state that the Commissioner was prevented from taking the books. If they were only requests, the Commissioner would have expressed  his regret and inability to comply with their requests, and he would have complied with the directions of the Court which appointed him as the Commissioner. The very object  of asking for police assistance  and taking them there was to see that no one caused a breach of the peace  when the commissioner executes the orders of the Court.  But unfortunately in this case, in spite of the fact that the Commissioner applied to the police for help, and it was granted by the court that help was not forthcoming.\n<\/p>\n
 11. No doubt, Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 give a different version. According to them, they were asked to take custody of the books but as they  had no authority to take the books in to their custody, the 4th respondent sent the 5th respondent to the police station to take instructions from the A. S. I.  He went and returned saying  that the Circle Inspector who was present had stated that they had no authority to take custody of the books. Then the 4th respondent himself sent to  the police station  and Circle Inspector told  him the same thing.  The Circle Inspector, Respondent No. 6 did not ask them to come away from  the Grandhalayam but instructed them to stay there till the Commissioner finished his work and to see nothing untoward  happened.\n<\/p>\n
 12.  The 6th respondent denied that he was in collusion with the other respondents and stated that the 5th respondent came and said that the Advocate commissioner prepared an inventory  of the books  and he was insisting that the police should take custody of the books and wanted to know if he could do so. On looking into the letter of requisition, he told him that the police were not authorised to do so and if they did, they would be exceeding their powers. Then the 5th respondent  went away. The 4th respondent also came and inquired about the same he has instructed in the same way. After completing his work, the 6th respondent went to the spot  where he found the van of the police Control Room. Thereupon  he stopped and asked the Control Room Party why they were here. The Head Constable who was in -charge  of the party replied that they had come in response to a telephone call that a gallata was going on at the Grandhalayam  and that when they came, they found that there was no gallata and that it was a false call. A gentleman who  came from Grandhalayam stated that  he made that telephone all. Thereupon the 6th respondent advised  him that it was not proper to make  false calls to the Control Room and that persons giving false complaints are liable to be prosecuted. That gentleman did not say anything. Thereafter the 6th respondent immediately left the place in jeep for  the office. He says it is not  correct  to say that he threatened the gentleman with prosecution. He also  says he did not speak to him harshly and what he told him was merely in the nature of an advice.\n<\/p>\n
 13.  The affidavits of other persons also were adduced in support of the contention that what the Commissioner asked for was not police assassinate to take the books but to keep the books in the police custody. They further stated that the Head Constable  and Police Constable  after their return  submitted a report to him stating that the Commissioner told them that if they were not prepared to take charge of the books  he did not require  a bandobust and they may go away. The Head Constable also made an entry in the General Diary to that effect. The affidavit of Mustafa shows that he was in-charge of the Police Station on 5-3-67 and that at about 6-30 p.m. a telephone message was received from Hanumantharaya Grandhalayam that a gallata was going on there. Immediately, he went there with the Police Control Room party and did not  find any gallata there. He questioned the persons present there, where and what the gallata was and some of them replied that there was no gallata. Then he went down-stairs. Even the General Diary shows that the Advocate Commissioner had telephoned at 6-30 p. m.  saying that a gallata was going on  at the said library. In response to this, a party left at 6-45 p. m.  but found no gallata at the spot and therefore they returned to the Control Room. In the affidavits of A. Y. S. S. P  Sarma and B. V, Rama Rao also it is stated that there was no gallata. The former says that when he went there he found that the almirah had been broken open and some books were bundled up, and one of the lawyers asked the police  personnel present there to take charge of  the books.  The Head Constable  told him that he cannot take charge of the books but that he would give the necessary assistance to the lawyer and stay there till the work was completed.\n<\/p>\n
 Even the statement taken from the petitioner by S. V. Narashimhulu, deputy Superintendent of Police, Vijayawada  shows that the Commissioner and the 6th respondent were having hot discussion. Even from this statement, from what the 6th respondent stated namely that the commissioner kept quiet when he was told that he was liable to be prosecuted. It would appear that the 6th respondent trying to hide what actually took place between them. We have no hesitation in holding that the statements made by Respondents No. 4 to 6 and others which are adduced in support of them to buttress the version given, and to justify their inaction are all sterotyped. It appears  incredible as to why when the commissioner accompanied by the petitioner and lawyers had gone there with the purpose of executing the warrant and bringing  the books, they would leave the books and come away nor is it  clear why they would ask the police to take custody of the books unless they  were apprehending danger of the books being forcibly removed from the premises by Respondents 1 to 3 and their supporters. The whole truth has not been stated  by the respondents  and it is regrettable that the police who were sent there to help the officer of the Court, have not rendered the necessary assistance, resulting  in the disappearance of the accounts books etc. We do not say that they have obstructed him but they  were positively unhelpful. The affidavit of the petitioner  is corroborated by the report of the Commissioner and it shows that Respondents 1 to 3 obstructed the Commissioner while executing  the warrant under the direct orders of the court. Not only that, even the books were spirited away and the allegation that the petitioner and his people took them away is an utter falsehood. Notwithstanding the fact that the 2nd respondent is said to have had the keys though when the came on the scene he said they were with some one else, the commissioner had to get the safe and locker broken open and recover the books.\n<\/p>\n
 14.  The contention raised by Respondents 1 to 3 that the Court which issued the warrant had no jurisdiction to do so and that the same is null and void: as  such, there is no contempt of the order of the Court has also no validity. Order 39 Rule 7 C. P. C. empowers the Court  on the application of any party to  a suit, and on such terms as it thinks fit, to make  an order for detention, preservation or inspection or any property which is subject-matter of such suit, or as to which  any question  may arise therein or for all or any of the purposes aforesaid authorize any samples to be taken, or any observations to be made or experiment to be tries, which may seem necessary or expedient for the purposes of obtaining full information  or evidence. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 also says that  the provisions as to execution or process shall  apply mutatis mutandis to persons  authorised to enter under this rule. These provisions are wide enough to authorize any of the parties to a suit to apply for  and obtain orders to seize the account books and to have them into court or the defendant cares to rely on them.\n<\/p>\n
 15.  In this case, the plaintiff made an application in the suit for a permanent injunction restraining  the defendant from functioning as secretary of the Executive Committee alleging  that  that secretary mismanaged. IN order to establish this,  account books were necessary and on the application  of the plaintiff’s petition (sic) the Court  had jurisdiction to issue  the impugned  order. Sri Rama Rao appearing for Respondents No. 1 to 3 cites Padam Sen v.  State of U. P.   in support of his contention that there was no power in the court to issue an order of the nature of which contempt is said to have been committed. In that case,  Their Lordships of the Supreme Court were considering the case of a person  who  is alleged to  have obstructed the Commissioner in the execution of  his duties. In a suit filed  for recovery of money on the basis of  promissory notes executed  by defendants in his favour, the  defendant applied to have the plaintiffs account books brought in to Court on the apprehension that the plaintiff would tamper with the books and might fabricate them. The Additional Munsif issued a warrant to seize the said books of account, and bring them into court. The commissioner accordingly seized the books and brought them toe Gaziabad. The appellants were convicted by the Special Judge under Section 165 -a I. P. C. for having offered  bribe to the Commissioner for being allowed an opportunity to tamper with those books  on account, and their conviction was upheld by the High Court.  But their Lordships  of the Supreme Court observed that the defendants had no right to  these account books. They could not lay  any claim to them. They applied  for the seizure of  these books because they apprehended that the plaintiff might make such entries in those books which could go  against the case  they were setting up in Court.  they rejected the contention that such an order could be  passed by a Court under several provisions namely section 75 or Section 151 or Order 26 \/Rules 38 and 39. Raghubar Dayal J., observed at p. 220 as follows:\n<\/p>\n
 “Rule 7 of Order XXXIX empowers the Court on the application of any party to a suit, to make an order for the detention, preservation or inspection of any property which is the subject-matter or such suit or as to which any question may arise therein.  The account books of the plaintiffs were not ‘property’ which were that subject matter of the suit not such that about them a question could arise in the suit.  The account books could at best have been a piece of evidence, if the plaintiff or the defendant had cared to rely on them, we therefore hold that the Additional Munsif had no power under Code to appoint the Commissioner  for seizing the plaintiff’s books of account”.\n<\/p>\n
 16.  IN this case, certainly as observation by their Lordships of the Supreme Court the account books were required as a piece of evidence by the plaintiff who cares to rely on them for establishing allegations made by him in order to obtain an order or permanent injunction: as such order 39 Rule 7 confers ample powers on this Court  to seize them. A large number of cases have been cited for the proposition that where an order of the Court is without jurisdiction  no contempt can be said to have been committed.  But inasmuch as we have found  that the line of cases. So long as there  is an order by the Court which requires compliance no only, parties but even third parties who are not parties  to the suit and who have notice for disobedience of such orders or for obstructing the execution of the same. Whether the order is valid or irregular unless it is vacated, it has got to be obeyed. Oswald in his book “Contempt of Court” (3rd edition) at pare 107 says:\n<\/p>\n
 “An order irregularly obtained  cannot be treated  as a nullity but must be implicitly obeyed, until by a proper application it  is discharged, and the case is the same where the order is alleged to have been improvidently made.”\n<\/p>\n
 In Narain Singh v. S. Haridayal Singh  , it has been held that so long as the injunction order has not granting it, or has not been reversed on appeal , no matter how unreasonable and unjust  the injunction may be, the order must be obeyed. Violation of the order of injunction cannot be executed  on the ground that though the court acted within its jurisdiction . the order that it passed was erroneous.  The Court in  contempt proceedings  will not inquire into the merits  of the case in which the injunctions issued.\n<\/p>\n
 17.  In subodh Gopal v. Dalmia Jain & co. Ltd.,  it has been held that right or wrong the injunction order binds him, and he disregards it at his peril.\n<\/p>\n
 18.  It appears to us from what we have stated above that respondents 1 to 3 have committed gross contempt not only in not obeying the orders of the \/court but in obstructing the execution thereof by the Commissioner appointed by it. Their further action in spiriting away the books nullifies and reduces the process of the Court to mere nothing. This aggravates the contempt. While we cannot say with the same certainty that respondents 4 to 6 in any way obstructed or committed contempt of the orders of the Court, nonetheless, being the minions of law and order, their services were requisitioned and their assistance was sought  in furtherance of the execution of the orders of the court, but they stood by, without rendering  much help and later they invented a theory that the Commissioner had asked them to take the books into their custody, which under the  requisition they were not asked to do. We cannot accept the statement that there was no galata at all and that no  threat or obstruction was cause in the execution of the commission. It is certain that the \/commissioner was not permitted to take the books. Respondents 4 and 5 did nothing and respondent 6 who came on the scene rendered no assistance. It is unthinkable that the commissioner would not have reported that matter to the 6th respondent  nor would he have falsely blamed his conduct. However, in the case of respondents 4, 5 and 6 we drop the proceedings against them with the observation that we cannot look askance at their unhelpful and negatice attitude in not assisting the execution of the orders of the Court by  the Commissioner. Where the police are required to render assistance in executing  the orders of Court, they must diligently an actively assist – nay it is one of their duties  which they can neglect to perform only at the risk and peril of exposing themselves to censure and punishment. In so far as respondents 1 to 3 are concerned, their acts are  contumacious and they have caused  obstructions to the execution of the orders of the Court.\n<\/p>\n
 19.  We accordingly convict Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 for contempt of Court. The conduct of these respondents is derogatory to the dignity and authority of law in stultifies the process through which \/courts  of law in this  country must  administer justice. The impunity with which respondents 1 to 3 not only disobeyed but subsequently tried to justify it as  if the orders were issued without jurisdiction, adds to the aggravation of the offence. They have not also tendered any apology. We accordingly sentence each of respondents 1 to 3  to two months simple imprisonment with directions that they may be  detained in District Prison, Secunderabad.\n<\/p>\n
20. Order accordingly.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Andhra High Court Kruthiventi Kutumba Rao vs Muthi Venkata Subba Rao And Ors. on 18 July, 1967 Equivalent citations: AIR 1969 AP 47, 1969 CriLJ 149 Author: J Reddy Bench: P J Reddy, Venkatesam JUDGMENT Jaganmohan Reddy, C.J. 1. This is a petition to commit Respondents Nos. 1 to 6 for contempt for violating the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[10,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-43597","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-andhra-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKruthiventi Kutumba Rao vs Muthi Venkata Subba Rao And Ors. on 18 July, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kruthiventi-kutumba-rao-vs-muthi-venkata-subba-rao-and-ors-on-18-july-1967\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kruthiventi Kutumba Rao vs Muthi Venkata Subba Rao And Ors. on 18 July, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kruthiventi-kutumba-rao-vs-muthi-venkata-subba-rao-and-ors-on-18-july-1967\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1967-07-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-09T17:24:02+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"30 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kruthiventi-kutumba-rao-vs-muthi-venkata-subba-rao-and-ors-on-18-july-1967#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kruthiventi-kutumba-rao-vs-muthi-venkata-subba-rao-and-ors-on-18-july-1967\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kruthiventi Kutumba Rao vs Muthi Venkata Subba Rao And Ors. on 18 July, 1967\",\"datePublished\":\"1967-07-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-09T17:24:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kruthiventi-kutumba-rao-vs-muthi-venkata-subba-rao-and-ors-on-18-july-1967\"},\"wordCount\":5992,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Andhra High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kruthiventi-kutumba-rao-vs-muthi-venkata-subba-rao-and-ors-on-18-july-1967#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kruthiventi-kutumba-rao-vs-muthi-venkata-subba-rao-and-ors-on-18-july-1967\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kruthiventi-kutumba-rao-vs-muthi-venkata-subba-rao-and-ors-on-18-july-1967\",\"name\":\"Kruthiventi Kutumba Rao vs Muthi Venkata Subba Rao And Ors. on 18 July, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1967-07-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-09T17:24:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kruthiventi-kutumba-rao-vs-muthi-venkata-subba-rao-and-ors-on-18-july-1967#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kruthiventi-kutumba-rao-vs-muthi-venkata-subba-rao-and-ors-on-18-july-1967\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kruthiventi-kutumba-rao-vs-muthi-venkata-subba-rao-and-ors-on-18-july-1967#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kruthiventi Kutumba Rao vs Muthi Venkata Subba Rao And Ors. on 18 July, 1967\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Kruthiventi Kutumba Rao vs Muthi Venkata Subba Rao And Ors. on 18 July, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kruthiventi-kutumba-rao-vs-muthi-venkata-subba-rao-and-ors-on-18-july-1967","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kruthiventi Kutumba Rao vs Muthi Venkata Subba Rao And Ors. on 18 July, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kruthiventi-kutumba-rao-vs-muthi-venkata-subba-rao-and-ors-on-18-july-1967","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1967-07-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-09T17:24:02+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"30 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kruthiventi-kutumba-rao-vs-muthi-venkata-subba-rao-and-ors-on-18-july-1967#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kruthiventi-kutumba-rao-vs-muthi-venkata-subba-rao-and-ors-on-18-july-1967"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kruthiventi Kutumba Rao vs Muthi Venkata Subba Rao And Ors. on 18 July, 1967","datePublished":"1967-07-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-09T17:24:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kruthiventi-kutumba-rao-vs-muthi-venkata-subba-rao-and-ors-on-18-july-1967"},"wordCount":5992,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Andhra High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kruthiventi-kutumba-rao-vs-muthi-venkata-subba-rao-and-ors-on-18-july-1967#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kruthiventi-kutumba-rao-vs-muthi-venkata-subba-rao-and-ors-on-18-july-1967","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kruthiventi-kutumba-rao-vs-muthi-venkata-subba-rao-and-ors-on-18-july-1967","name":"Kruthiventi Kutumba Rao vs Muthi Venkata Subba Rao And Ors. on 18 July, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1967-07-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-09T17:24:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kruthiventi-kutumba-rao-vs-muthi-venkata-subba-rao-and-ors-on-18-july-1967#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kruthiventi-kutumba-rao-vs-muthi-venkata-subba-rao-and-ors-on-18-july-1967"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kruthiventi-kutumba-rao-vs-muthi-venkata-subba-rao-and-ors-on-18-july-1967#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kruthiventi Kutumba Rao vs Muthi Venkata Subba Rao And Ors. on 18 July, 1967"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43597","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=43597"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43597\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=43597"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=43597"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=43597"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}