Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Abdul Majid Khan v. Abdul Hamid Khan - CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. 898 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 4418 (24 February 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Hon. Tarun Agarwala,J.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

It transpires that a partition suit was decreed on the basis of a compromise filed by the parties. Thereafter the opposite party filed an application for setting aside the compromise. This application was rejected against which a Writ Petition No.27606 of 2003 was filed, which was dismissed by an order dated 3.7.2003 and the Court further directed the opposite party to vacate the accommodation in dispute within a period of three months. This order of the High Court was challenged by the opposite party in a Special Leave Petition. Initially the appeal was entertained by the Supreme Court and an interim order of status-quo was passed, but subsequently the Special Leave Petition was dismissed by an order dated 6.12.2004 by the Supreme Court.

The present contempt application has been filed against the opposite party for non-compliance of the direction of the Court dated 3.7.2003 which directed the opposite party to vacate the premises in question. In the opinion of the Court, the decree has to be executed in which the parties are given full opportunity to place their objections, that procedure cannot be circumvented by filing the contempt proceedings. Consequently, even though this Court directed the opposite party to vacate the premises the opposite party has a right to file objection in the execution proceedings which are pending before the Court below.

Consequently the contempt proceedings are dropped, the notice is discharged and the contempt application is rejected.

Dated: 24.2.2006

AKJ.  (CA 898/05)


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.