The court rejected a contempt application alleging violation of an interim stay order. It held that the order did not restrain the parties from dealing with the property, and thus no prohibition existed for executing a sale agreement. The application was dismissed as there was a lack of contempt.
Contempt application rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 40
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 5131 of 2018
Applicant :- Pratap Singh Opposite Party :- Ram Ladaite Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Mishra,Anil Kumar Dubey
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
The instant contempt application has been filed for alleged violation of the orders dated 05.02.2009 and 16.08.2012 in Writ Petition No. 5981 of 2009 (Chandra Pal Vs. State of U.P. and others). The writ petition was filed by the father of the applicant. He died during pendency of the writ petition and the applicant was substituted in his place. By order dated 05.02.2009, this Court stayed the operation of the order dated 13.01.2009 by Additional Commissioner, Aligarh Region, Aligarh which was under challenge. The order of the Additional Commissioner dated 13.01.2009 set asides the order dated 08.09.2008 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kasganj and revives the order of Tehsildar, Kasganj dated 12.06.2007. The interim order passed by this Court in the writ petition was extended until further orders on 16.08.2012.
The effect of the interim order passed by this Court is that the order passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kasganj dated 08.09.2008 would stand revived. Under the order dated 08.09.2008, name of father of the applicant is to be recorded in the revenue records as heir and legal representative of deceased Ran Singh.
The case of the applicant in the instant contempt application is that the opposite party despite stay order of this Court has executed a registered agreement dated 24.07.2018 in respect of the same land.
As noted above, the effect of the order of this Court is that name of the father of the applicant is to be recorded in the revenue records. It is not the case of the applicant that name of his father is not being recorded in compliance of the interim order of this Court and order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kasganj dated 08.09.2008.
There is no order of this Court restraining the respondents to the writ proceedings from dealing with the property nor any specific prohibition in executing agreement of sale. In case the same is illegal, it could be subject matter of challenge in
appropriate proceedings but for such reason, the opposite party cannot be said to be in contempt.
Contempt Application is, accordingly, rejected.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)
Order Date :- 17.7.2019 Nirmal Sinha
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the opposite party is in contempt for executing a registered agreement despite the interim stay order.
Whether the interim order restrains the execution of an agreement of sale regarding the disputed property.
Pratap Singh
Manoj Kumar Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
