Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ANAND KUMAR & OTHERS versus DEVESH CHATURVEDI & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Anand Kumar & Others v. Devesh Chaturvedi & Others - CONTEMPT APPEAL (CRIMINAL) No. 4 of 2003 [2005] RD-AH 858 (24 March 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. 32

Contempt Appeal No. 4 of 2003

Anand Kumar and 6 others  v. Devesh Chaturvedi and 5 others

     .....

Hon'ble S.Rafat Alam J.

Hon'ble Vikram Nath J.

This contempt appeal is preferred against the order of learned single Judge dated 5.5.2003 in Civil Misc. Contempt Petition No.982 of 2002 dismissing the contempt petition on the ground of non joinder and mis joinder of the necessary parties. The Station House Officer Sri Raja Ram Singh who appeared before the contempt Court was not found liable for any willful disobedience of this Courts order.

No body has appeared on behalf of the appellants even when the case was again called out in the revised list, though names of two counsels viz. Sri S.N. Dubey and Sri Gyan Chand Singh are shown in the main cause list as counsel for the appellant. It appears from the order sheet that on earlier occasion also this appeal was adjourned on the ground of illness slip of Sri Gyan Chand Singh one of the counsel for the appellant. Today also an illness slip has been sent by Sri Gyan Chand Singh counsel for the appellant while this appeal has been presented/filed by Sri S.N. Dubey but he is also not present and therefore we are not inclined to adjourn the matter.

We have perused the record and the order of learned single Judge dated 5.5.2002.

It appears that the appellant moved contempt petition No.982 of 2003 for initiating the proceeding under the Contempt of Court Act against the respondents. Learned single Judge having heard learned counsel for the parties dismissed the petition on the ground of non joinder and mis-joinder of the necessary parties. Further with regard to Raja Ram Singh the S.H.O. respondent no.4 who had appeared before the Court, the learned single Judge found that he is not guilty of willful disobedience of this Court order dated 30.9.2002 as alleged in the contempt petition and therefore, cannot be proceeded with for contempt, hence discharged and the petition was dismissed with costs of Rs.1000/-.

It appears that in respect of agricultural land the appellants filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.35991 of 2001 alleging that respondent no.6 and others were interfering with the possession over the land in question. The writ petition was admitted vide order dated 30.9.2002 and by interim order respondents to the writ petition were restrained from interfering with the possession of the petitioner over the land in dispute. The grievance of the appellants was that despite aforesaid interim order, the respondents are willfully and deliberately disobeying the order as they have interfered with his peaceful possession over the land in dispute. It further appears that the appellants moved an application before the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 15.12.2002 whereupon the Sub Divisional Magistrate directed the Station Officer to restrain both the parties from cutting the crops and to take further steps after making an enquiry. Consequently an enquiry was made by the Lekhpal and pursuant his report the Sub Divisional Magistrate issued certain directions vide order dated 3.11.2003 to maintain peace and tranquility in the area. No evidence has been brought on record to show that the appellants have been dispossessed from the land in question despite the interim order of this Court in the writ petition and therefore, we are of the view that the learned single Judge has rightly dismissed the contempt petition.

There is no merit in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed.

Dt.24.3.2005

Hsc/


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.