P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri Sriniva Murthy, the learned Counsel represents the petitioner, Sri Rama Krishna, the learn counsel representing Respondents 1 and respondent 2, Smt. Bhaskara Lakshmi, the learned Counsel representing Respondent and the learned Government Pleader home, Sri Rama Rao representing respondent 4 and Respondent 5. ( 2 ) THE petitioner filed the Contempt case under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the act in short ). The facts in brief are as follows: ( 3 ) THE petitioner filed C. R. P. No. 1705 of 2001 on the file of this Court questioning the eviction order passed in R. C. C. No. 42 of 1990 on the file of the learned Rent controller-cum-Principal District Munisif guntur as confirmed in R. C. A. No. 18 of 1994 on the file of Principal Senior Civil judge, Guntur and this Court after hearing both the parties, dismissed the C. R. P. by its order dated 31-12-2001 and granted time till the end of August, 2002 to vacate the premises. ( 4 ) IT was also stated that in spite of bona fide efforts to secure alternative accommodation, the petitioner could not get the same and hence, the petitioner was constrained to file C. M. P. No. 12935 of 2002 seeking extension of time for vacating the premises and this Court on 15-7-2002 passed the following order: "the learned Counsel for the respondent states that reasonable time can be given, since already sufficient time had been given. ( 5 ) IN view of the said submission, time is extended till end of August, 2002". ( 6 ) IT was also stated that immediately on 15-7-2002 the petitioner s Counsel communicated the said order to the petitioner and on 16-7-2002 the said order was also communicated by wire to the court below. Notwithstanding the orders passed on 15-7-2002 the 1st respondent proceeded with the execution proceedings and on 15-7-2002, when the representative of the 1st respondent Sri Koteswara Rao and certain others came to his house, it was informed to them about the extension of time and they had left the premises on the said date. Notwithstanding the orders passed on 15-7-2002 the 1st respondent proceeded with the execution proceedings and on 15-7-2002, when the representative of the 1st respondent Sri Koteswara Rao and certain others came to his house, it was informed to them about the extension of time and they had left the premises on the said date. It was further stated that on 20-7-2002 the representative of the 1st respondent Sri Koteswara Rao and other persons with anti-social background came and threatened him to throw out of the premises within few hours in case he was not prepared to vacate the premises. Immediately, the petitioner approached sri T. Muralikrishna, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Arundelpet Police Station and showed him the telegram communicated to him by his Counsel on 15-7-2002 and also informed him about the threat of dispossession. It was also stated that Sri murali Krishna abused him in filthy language and further stated that it is common for every tenant to secure some telegram and protract the litigation and certain other allegations also were made against Sri Murali Krishna. ( 7 ) IT was further pleaded that the petitioner had contacted his Counsel at hyderabad and informed him about the state of affairs and his Counsel, immediately spoke to Sri Murali Krishna and Sri Sai dutta, the Court Amin and he was later informed by his Counsel that the Court amin wanted him to produce the wire order when he comes to the premises and he would close the warrant noting the order dated 15-7-2002 extending time and he was also informed by his Counsel that he contacted the respondents Counsel and requested him to use his good offices to prevent any unnecessary, unpleasant illegal action. ( 8 ) IT was further stated that while the matters stood thus, when the Court amin, Sri Koteswara Rao and some plain clothed people and police officials came to his premises, the petitioner produced the order copy and also the telegram issued by his Counsel. ( 8 ) IT was further stated that while the matters stood thus, when the Court amin, Sri Koteswara Rao and some plain clothed people and police officials came to his premises, the petitioner produced the order copy and also the telegram issued by his Counsel. It was also stated that Sri koteswara Rao took the telegram and tore it away and when the petitioner protested the Court Amin and the police officials threatened him with dire consequences and tore away the order copy produced by him, and when the petitioner tried to contact his Counsel at Hyderabad to inform the high-handed conduct of the Court Amin, sri Koteswara Rao rushed and removed the telephone and electricity connections and his premises was rounded off by police. It was also stated that one Mr. Raghu, a local Advocate is a mute witness to the high-handed, illegal brutal force of the respondents and their hench men who worked in perfect collusion with the Amin and the police. It was also specifically stated that the order copies faxed by his Counsel from Hyderabad were torn off and the Police through the Sub-Inspector of Police and the assistant Sub-Inspector of Police acted perfectly to the tunes of Mr. Koteswara Rao who obviously acted at the behest of 1st respondent. ( 9 ) THE petitioner also had stated that all household articles were thrown out on road causing substantial damage and irreparable loss. No doubt, the petitioner also had made several other allegations by which the petitioner intends to substantiate how the respondents had wilfully, deliberately violated the orders of this Court. ( 10 ) APART from the affidavit sworn by the petitioner in support of the Contempt case inasmuch as this Court was not inclined to order restoration initially, the petitioner also filed certain third party affidavits, viz. , affidavit of Shaik Mansoor All, affidavit of Mr. B. Ravindra Babu and also the affidavit of Smt V. Satya Priya, who is none other than the wife of the petitioner. Here itself it may be stated that Sri Rama Krishna, who had represented Respondent 1 and respondent 2, even at the first instance had stated before the Court that the landlady is not interested in violating the Court orders and the landlady is ready and willing to deliver back possession in view of the extension granted by this Court. Here itself it may be stated that Sri Rama Krishna, who had represented Respondent 1 and respondent 2, even at the first instance had stated before the Court that the landlady is not interested in violating the Court orders and the landlady is ready and willing to deliver back possession in view of the extension granted by this Court. However, this Court had made an order of extension and also had appointed a commissioner for the purpose of noting the damages. The Commissioner had filed his report. Notice was served even on the advocate General. ( 11 ) IN view of the prima facie material, the Contempt Case was admitted and inasmuch as the parties were present, their presence was dispensed with. The respective parties have filed their counter affidavits. The first respondent had filed counter- affidavit taking a stand that the order of extension granted by this Court was not within their knowledge and when they contacted their Advocate at High Court on 22-7-2002, the Advocate confirmed that the extension was given. It was also stated that their Advocate Sri B. H. Venkataramaiah had handed over the entire file in the 2nd week of January, 2002 and the Advocate was not aware of their telephone number. In para 5 of the counter-affidavit, details had been narrated, how steps had been taken by her as a decree-holder for the purpose of obtaining possession of the schedule premises. ( 12 ) THE third respondent-the Court amin had denied all the allegations and had taken a stand that on 20-7-2002 he was entrusted with a delivery warrant in e. A. No. 128 of 2002 in E. P. No. 19 of 2002 in R. C. C. No. 42 of 1990 to deliver the R. C. C. decree schedule property to the 1st respondent and along with the warrants he also received a cover addressed to the S. H. O. , l and O. , Arundelpet P. S. , Guntur and handed over the same to the said S. H. O. , who is shown in his individual capacity as fourth respondent and he provided the police aid consisting of one A. S. I, two Constables and head Constable and he proceeded to the schedule property along with the respondents 1 and 2 and mediators with police aid. It was also stated that the petitioner was present in the house and he showed delivery warrant and explained him the purpose of his visiting to the schedule property and he executed the delivery warrant with police aid, evicted the petitioner from the R. C. C. schedule property and delivered the same to the 1 st respondent free from any obstruction. It was further stated that the petitioner took away all his movables from the schedule property in two mini lorries and after executing the warrant in the presence of mediators and police he returned the warrant with his report on 22-7-2002. The averments in paras 6 and 7 of the affidavit filed in support of the Contempt Case had been specifically denied. He had specifically stated that the petitioner had not shown any wire order and the Counsel for the petitioner also never spoke to him and in such a case there is no question of tearing off the wire order. No doubt, he had stated that he is having the highest regard and respect to the judicial orders and ultimately at para No. 9 of the counter-affidavit, he also pleaded that if this Court is of the opinion that the act committed by him amounts to contempt of Court, he tenders unconditional apology in this regard, and all the relevant documents related to the same had been enclosed by the third respondent, the concerned Court Amin. ( 13 ) THE 4th and 5th respondents also have filed counter affidavits virtually denying all the allegations and taking a stand that in compliance with the directions of the hon ble I Additional Junior Civil Judge, guntur in official memorandum dated 19-7-2002 to give necessary police aid to the Court Amin for causing execution of delivery warrant issued against the petitioner in E. A. No. 128 of 2002, in E. P. No. 19 of 2002, in R. C. C. 42 of 1990 on the file of Principal junior Civil Judge s Court, Guntur, he provided necessary police aid to the Court amin in the matter on 20-7-2002 and as such, the said action of police cannot be characterised as illegal or violation of orders passed by this Court. It was also stated that there is no wilful disobedience or violation of the orders passed by this court. It was also stated that there is no wilful disobedience or violation of the orders passed by this court. As far as the incident relating to the production of order copy and tearing off the order copy, these allegations were specifically denied in para No. 4 of the counter- affidavit. The counter-affidavit filed by 5th respondent also is virtually on the same lines as that of the 4th respondent. This Court also had called for a report from the learned District Judge, Guntur in this regard. ( 14 ) SRI Srinivasa Murthy, the learned counsel representing the petitioner had fairly submitted that this is a matter concerned with the extension of order and the petitioner had availed the benefit of extension, but the question is about the contemptuous attitude of the respondents in general and especially the attitude of Respondent 3 to respondent 5 in particular. The learned counsel had taken me through paras 6 and 7 of the affidavit filed in support of the contempt Case and also the third party affidavits filed in support of such allegations. The learned Counsel further contended that, no doubt, in a contempt proceeding the role of the petitioner is very limited and the petitioner had brought all the facts to the notice of this Court and it is for the Court to initiate necessary action. The learned counsel, further submitted that the attitude of the Executive in general and the Police in particular, of late, in disregarding and disobeying the directions and orders of the court, definitely is on increase and if this tendency is not checked up, it is very difficult for the Courts to keep up the dignity of the courts and also to see the orders and directions of the Court are implemented in their true spirit. ( 15 ) SRI Rama Krishna, the learned counsel representing Respondent 1 and respondent 2 had drawn my attention to the report of the learned District Judge and also the report submitted by the concerned officer and had pointed out that, immediately, the Counsel representing the 1 st respondent, when it was known to him that there was extension by this Court had submitted even before the Rent Controller and even filed a memo to that effect that she was ready and willing to deliver back the possession in compliance of the orders issued by this court. The learned Counsel also submitted that the facts reveal that the 1st respondent had no knowledge about the passing of the extension order and hence, she had further proceeded with execution and inasmuch as the order was not communicated to the learned Rent Controller nor it was brought to his notice, the learned Rent Controller had further proceeded with the matter and hence, the 1st respondent-decree holder had no role to play at all in this regard. The learned Counsel also submitted that as far as the role of the 2nd respondent is concerned, no doubt, an allegation relating to his participation and an incident of tearing off the order of the Court had been specifically complained. But there is a specific denial relating to the same. The learned Counsel further submitted that the material placed as against Respondent 2 and respondent 3 to R. 5 in this regard is common material and it is highly insufficient to substantiate the said stand. ( 16 ) SMT. Bhaskara Lakshmi, representing the Court Amin-R. 3 had taken me through the report of the learned Rent Controller and also the report submitted b. y the learned District Judge, Guntur and had pointed out, that the Court Amin had not done anything except simply obeying the orders of the Court and he had discharged his duties while executing the delivery warrant entrusted to him. The learned counsel also pointed out that it is not in dispute that it was not within the knowledge of the learned Rent Controller about the passing of the extension order by this court. The learned Counsel further submitted that, as far as the third party affidavits relied on by the petitioner, if carefully scrutinised, it is doubtful whether the petitioner is coming up with true version in this case. The learned Counsel had drawn my attention to para No. 4 of the affidavit filed in support of the Contempt Case and also the affidavit filed by Smt Satya Priya, the wife of the petitioner in general and paras 2 and 4 in particular. The learned Counsel had drawn my attention to para No. 4 of the affidavit filed in support of the Contempt Case and also the affidavit filed by Smt Satya Priya, the wife of the petitioner in general and paras 2 and 4 in particular. The learned counsel also further submitted that apart from all these aspects, in para No. 9 of the counter affidavit, the third respondent-Court amin had tendered unconditional apology and in view of the facts and circumstances inasmuch as the petitioner had failed to establish the alleged Contempt committed by these respondents, the Contempt Case is liable to be dismissed. ( 17 ) SRI Rama Rao, the learned government Pleader for Home further elaborating the submissions had stated that these police officials had not done anything except to assist the Court Amin in pursuance of the directions of the Court and it is in discharge of their official duties and such conduct cannot be said to be contemptuous conduct. ( 18 ) THE learned Counsel had also drawn my attention to a stand taken by the police officials in the counter-affidavits. ( 19 ) HEARD the Counsel at length and perused the material available on record. ( 20 ) SEVERAL of the facts are not in dispute. It is a fact that on 15-7-2002 this court had extended the time till the end of august 2002. As can be seen from the report of the learned District Judge, it is clear that the learned Rent Controller who had further proceeded with the execution proceedings had no knowledge of the extension of time granted by this Court during the relevant period and this aspect, no doubt, is not seriously disputed even by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. However, the conduct of the respondents in tearing off the Court Order was stressed as a contemptuous conduct. In fact, elaborate arguments had been advanced by all the respective Counsel on this aspect. It is, no doubt true that in Para Nos. 6 and 7 of the affidavit filed in support of the Contempt case, the details had been narrated and to further substantiate these allegations, the third party affidavits of Shaik Mansoor ali, Mr. B. Ravindra Babu and Smt. Satya priya were filed. As far as the report of the Commissioner is concerned, it does not throw any light relating to the facts and controversies in the contempt proceeding. B. Ravindra Babu and Smt. Satya priya were filed. As far as the report of the Commissioner is concerned, it does not throw any light relating to the facts and controversies in the contempt proceeding. However, certain aspects had been recorded by the Commissioner and the Commissioner also observed that he was unable to decide and come to a conclusion relating to the quantum of damage. As far as the incident which happened on the fateful day, the petitioner asserting that the passing of extension order was in fact brought to the notice of these respondents and a copy was produced and it was torn off and a stand was taken by the respondents denying the same and whether this conduct amounts to contemptuous acts within the meaning of the Act. ( 21 ) THE question which falls for consideration is "whether the material placed before the Court is sufficient to substantiate the allegations made by the petitioner?" ( 22 ) IN a decision in Chhotu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati and another, (2001) 7 SCC 530 , it was held that the commoa legal phraseology "he who asserts must prove" has its due application in the matter of proof of the allegations said to be constituting the act of contempt and a proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act is quasi- criminal in nature, and as such, standard of proof required for the same is that of a criminal proceeding and the breach shall have to be established beyond all reasonable doubt. ( 23 ) IN a decision in Mrityunjoy Das and another v. Sayed Hasibur Rahaman and others, (2001) 3 SCC 739 , it was held that, the introduction of the Contempt of courts Act, 1971 in the statute-book has been for purposes of securing a feeling of confidence of the people in general for due and proper administration of justice in the country. It is a powerful weapon in the hands of the Law Courts by reason therefore it must thus be exercised with due care and caution and for larger interest. ( 24 ) IN a decision in Commissioner, agra and others v. Rohtas Singh and others, (1998) 1 SCC 349 , it was held that the contempt proceedings are matters between court and Contemners. ( 24 ) IN a decision in Commissioner, agra and others v. Rohtas Singh and others, (1998) 1 SCC 349 , it was held that the contempt proceedings are matters between court and Contemners. ( 25 ) IN the present matter, there is no doubt specific allegation in relation to the incident and equally there is specific denial in the counter-affidavits filed by respective parties. As can be seen from the report of the learned District Judge, Guntur, during the relevant period the extension order was not within the knowledge of the learned rent Controller and in pursuance of the orders issued by the Court, the Court Amin had proceeded further for executing the delivery warrant with police aid and inasmuch as the communication was not received, Respondent No. 4 had acted in accordance with the direction of the court in giving police protection to the court Amin-respondent No. 3 herein. Hence, as far as taking out of the further execution proceedings is concerned, the proceedings were taken in accordance with law. But, however, the main stress of the petitioner is on the attitude and conduct of the respondents. The learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent, no doubt, had pointed out certain discrepancies and variations between the affidavit filed by the husband, the petitioner in the Contempt Case and also his wife as a third party. Apart from these variations and discrepancies to substantiate the allegations relating to the incident except the other two third party affidavits apart from the affidavit of the wife of the petitioner, there is no other material, and in this view of the matter, especially in the light of the conduct of the 1st respondent- decree holder and the Counsel representing the decree-holder filing a Memo before the learned Rent Controller expressing the willingness of the first respondent to deliver possession of the property in compliance with the directions of this Court, I do not think that there is sufficient material placed by the petitioner in substantiating the allegations relating to the contemptuous conduct on the part of the respondents. ( 26 ) IN view of the insufficient material, i am of the considered opinion that inasmuch as the petitioner failed in discharging the burden of proof, the petitioner had not made out a case of contempt against the respondents so as to attract the provisions of the Act. ( 26 ) IN view of the insufficient material, i am of the considered opinion that inasmuch as the petitioner failed in discharging the burden of proof, the petitioner had not made out a case of contempt against the respondents so as to attract the provisions of the Act. ( 27 ) HENCE, I do not see any merit in the Contempt Case. Accordingly, the contempt Case is dismissed. No orders as to costs.