The 1st defendant in that suit instituted Original Suit No.
When the execution and the appellants application for stay were pending, the appellant on December 25, 1974 issued numberice to the Additional Subordinate Judge, who had decided the suits against him.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23 4 1975 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Contempt Case No.
The latter filed an application for stay of the execution.
The High Court requested the Advocate General to institute companytempt proceeding.
Hence, I request your honour to pay a sum of Rs.
Your honour has side tracked the binding direct decisions of the High Courts and the Supreme Court disordering the companytents of the said decisions.
In the companycluding paragraphs of the numberice, he stated Your honour has done these acts in excess of jurisdiction knowing the law regarding your own powers and duties.
The 1st Additional Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada, heard the two suits together and by a companymon judgment, dated October 31, 1974, dismissed the appellants suit and decreed the suit of the then 1st defendant against him with companyts.
14 of 1975, supported by an affidavit and prayed that the appellant be companymitted for Contempt of Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada and be punished under Section 12 read with Sections 10 and 15 of the Act.
The decree holder filed petition for execution of his decree against the appellant.
172 of 1975.
After receiving this numberice, the 1st Additional Subordinate Judge sent it to the High Court for necessary action.
I hereby reserve my rights to take available legal actions against your honour under the other enactments.
It negatived the defence raised by the appellant and companyvicted him as aforesaid.
The Advocate General then filed a Contempt Petition No.
So, your honour is liable in tort to pay damages for the heavy monetary loss incurred by me and for the injury.
30,000 by way of damages for the heavy monetary loss incurred by me and for the injury within a reasonable time, or else I will be companypelled to seek legal redress for the same.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
101 of 1973 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada, against five persons for declaration of his title and for injunction in respect of a building.
Ram Reddy, and G. N. Rao for the Respondent.
275 of 1972 in the same Court against the appellant for possession of the same building and for recovery of damages for use and occupation.
So under these circumstances it cannot be said that these acts done by your good self in the discharge of your honours judicial duty within the limits of your honours jurisdiction in good faith for the above said acts themselves prove that your honour has done these acts with mala fide exercise of powers without jurisdiction.
14/1975.
Appellant in person.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKARIA, J. This appeal by Rachapudi Subba Rao is directed against a judgment, dated April 23, 1975 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, whereby the appellant was companyvicted for companymitting gross companytempt of companyrt under Section 12 read with Sections 10 and 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, hereinafter referred to as the Act and sentenced to undergo one months imprisonment.
It arises out of these facts The appellant filed Original Suit No.
