VIJAY KR. versus SHIV NARAIN

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

Vijay Kr. v. Shiv Narain - CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. 129 of 1994 [2004] RD-AH 386 (28 July 2004)

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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No.48

Civil Misc. Contempt Petition No. 129 of 1994

Vijai Kumar Srivastava............................ Applicant

Vs.

Shiv Nayak Yadav........................ Opposite party

Hon'ble S.P. Mehrotra, J.

List has been revised. Learned counsel for the petitioner / applicant is not present.

The present contempt petition has been filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is, interalia, prayed that the opposite party (Shiv Nayak Yadav) be punished for having committed contempt of this court by flouting the order dated 19.9.1991 (Annexure-1 to the affidavit accompanying the contempt petition) passed in Second Appeal No. 2119 of 1982.

The said order dated 19.9.1991 passed in the aforementioned Second Appeal No. 2119 of 1982, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-1 to the affidavit accompanying the contempt petition, is quoted below:

"Counsel for respondents had died.

Let notices be sent to the respondents to engage another counsel.

Issue notice.

Till further orders of this Court, the respondent no.2 shall not transfer the property in dispute."

By the order dated 18.1.1994 passed on the contempt petition, notice was directed to be issued to the opposite party  (Shiv Nayak Yadav) to show cause as to why he should not be proceeded against for committing contempt by not complying with this Court's Order dated 19.9.1991 passed in the aforesaid Second Appeal No. 2119 of 1982.

The Office submitted its report dated 5.5.1994, interalia, stating that the notice sent to the opposite party had been received back unserved with the remark " refused to take notice".

In the circumstances, it appears that the Court by the order dated 23.3.2004 directed for issuance of fresh notice to the opposite party returnable within four weeks.

It further appears from the office report dated 9.7.2004 that the notice issued to the opposite party pursuant to the said order dated 23.3.2004 has been returned back unserved due to the death of the said opposite party (Shiv Nayak Yadav).

The report submitted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi dated 27.5.2004 is also on the record. It is, interalia, stated in the said report that the said Shiv Nayak Yadav expired on 30.3.2003.

It is, thus, evident that the said Shiv Nayak Yadav, who is the sole opposite party in the contempt petition, has expired.

In the circumstances, the contempt petition has evidently become infructuous, and the same is liable to be dismissed as such.

The contempt petition is accordingly dismissed as having become infructuous.

Dt. 28.7.2004

safi

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 |

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