Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SRI RAM LEELA COMMITTEE versus SRI GHAN SHYAM, S.D.M. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sri Ram Leela Committee v. Sri Ghan Shyam, S.D.M. & Others - CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. 2581 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 1994 (18 August 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No.48

Civil Misc. Contempt Application No. 2581 of 2005

Sri Ram Leela Committee, Baghpur, Pargana Akbarpur, District-Kanpur Dehat.............................................................Applicant-Petitioner

Vs.

Sri Ghan Shyam Das, S.D.M. Akbarpur, Kanpur Dehat and others........................................................................ Respondents

Hon. S.P. Mehrotra, J.

The present Contempt Petition has been filed by the petitioner-applicant, interalia, praying for punishing the opposite parties for having committed contempt of this Court by flouting various orders mentioned in the prayer clause of the Contempt Petition.

Heard Shri K.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner -applicant, and perused the record.

As regards the order dated 4.8.2004 (Annexure-8 to the affidavit accompanying the Contempt Petition) passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30119 of 2004, it is evident from a perusal of the said order that a Division Bench of this Court dismissed the said Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30119 of 2004. However, the Division Bench, interalia, directed for maintenance of status quo for a period of 10 days from the date of the said order, i.e., 4.8.2004, while permitting the petitioner-applicant to approach the Civil Court by filing Civil Suit.

It is evident from a perusal of the averments made in the Contempt Petition and its accompanying affidavit that pursuant to the said order dated 4.8.2004, a Suit being Suit No. 282 of 2004 has been filed by the petitioner -applicant.

Therefore, there is no question of any disobedience by the opposite parties in respect of the said order dated 4.8.2004 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30119 of 2004.

It further appears from a perusal of the averments made in the Contempt Petition and its accompanying affidavit that status quo order dated 27.8.2004 was passed in the said Suit No. 282 of 2004.

It is, interalia, further alleged in the Contempt Petition and its accompanying affidavit, particularly in paragraph 30 of the said affidavit that the said status quo order was subsequently extended.

In case, there is any disobedience of the said status quo order passed in the said Suit No. 282 of 2004, as alleged by the petitioner -applicant, then appropriate remedy for the petitioner was to approach the Civil Court itself under Order XXXIX, Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Therefore, there is no question of entertaining the Contempt Petition by this Court on account of the alleged disobedience of the status quo order passed in the said Suit No. 282 of 2004.

As regards the order dated 26.2.1998 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7239 of 1998, the said order is an interim order passed in the said Writ Petition. The said order dated 26.2.1998 (Annexure-4 to the affidavit accompanying the Contempt Petition) is as follows:

"Until further order, further proceeding for auction of Ram Bazar on plot no. 1006, 1005 and 1004 situate in Village Baghpur shall remain stayed."

The said Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7239 of 1998 was admitted by the order dated 5.12.2000 (Annexure-5 to the affidavit accompanying the Contempt Petition).

From a perusal of the said interim order dated 26.2.1998, it is evident that this Court stayed further proceedings for auction of Ram Bazar on the plots mentioned in the said interim order dated 26.2.1998.

From a perusal of the averments made in the Contempt Petition and its accompanying affidavit, particularly those made in paragraphs 31 to 37 of the said affidavit, it is not clear as to how the said interim order dated 26.2.1998 is being violated. Shri K.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner -applicant has not shown any specific allegation made in the Contempt Petition or its accompanying affidavit that any auction of Ram Bazar on the plots mentioned in the said interim order dated 26.2.1998 is being done by the opposite parties in violation of the said interim order dated 26.2.1998.

In the circumstances, there is no question of any violation of the said interim order dated 26.2.1998.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the Contempt Petition lacks merit, and the same is liable to be dismissed.

The Contempt Petition is accordingly dismissed.

Dt. 18.8.2005

Safi


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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.