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


Bibhuti Rai v. Arun Kumar & Another - CONTEMPT APPEAL (CRIMINAL) No. 12 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 1686 (19 July 2005)


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).


Court No. 32

Civil Misc. Contempt Appeal No. 12 of 2005

Bibhuti Rai            Vs.            Arun Kumar and another


Hon.ble S.Rafat Alam J,

Hon'ble Vikram Nath J.

This contempt appeal is preferred against the order of learned single Judge dated  5.7.2005 in Civill Misc. Contempt Petition No. 515 of 2005 whereby the charges have been framed against the contemnor.

We have heard Sri U.N. Sharma senior counsel for the appellant and Sri Faujdar Rai learned counsel for the respondent.

A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the respondent that appeal is not maintainable against the order of framing of charges. On the other hand Sri Sharma learned senior counsel vehemently contended that on account of express provision of Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India the interim order of the writ Court stood automatically vacated and the  learned single Judge had no jurisdiction to take cognizance and pass an order for framing charges and therefore, against such an order appeal lies and placed reliance on a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Vijay Krishan Goswami Vs. Suresh Chand Jain reported in 1993 All.C.J. Page 1255. We do find any force in the submission for the reasons that framing of charges is not a final order but just interlocutory order and cannot be said to be final order. Learned single Judge has observed that inspite of injunction order the opposite party has sold the disputed land through registered sale deed and as such a triable case under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act was made out against the appellant and prima facie charges need to be  framed.

The Apex Court in the case of Purushottam Das Goel versus Hon. Mr. Justice B.S. Dhillon and others reported in AIR 1978 S.C.1014 has observed as follows :

     "We many repeat that it may be a different matter if the order does decide some disputes raised before it by the contemner asking it to drop the proceeding on one ground or the other. But unless and until there is some order or decision of the High Court adjudicating upon any matter raised before lit by the parties, affecting their rights the mere order issuing the notice is not appealable."

In the case in hand also the leaned single Judge has just indicated in the order that the appellant sold disputed land inspite of injunction order and as such prima facie case is made out and thereafter framed the charges against the appellant. There has been no adjudication by the learned single Judge, nor any issue has been decided by the order impugned in the appeal. We are therefore of the opinion that against such an order contempt appeal is not maintainable. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

However, it would be open to the appellant to raise all the pleas before the learned single Judge in the contempt proceeding.




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.