Application alleging violation of a status quo order. Opposite parties clarified they stopped unauthorized work after notice. Court dismissed application allowing fresh one.
Application dismissed with liberty to file fresh contempt application if order is violated.
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. - 5
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 917 of 2011
Applicant :- Suresh Chand Singhal And Another Opposite Party :- Mohd. Mustakeem And Another Counsel for Applicant :- S.D. Kautilya Counsel for Opposite Party :- S.C.,Mrs.Karuna Srivastava,Santosh Srivastava
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Heard Sri Satya Vrat Sahai holding brief of Sri S.D. Kautilya, learned counsel for the applicants.
This contempt application has been filed alleging that the status quo order passed by this court in First Appeal No.721 of 2005 dated 08.05.2006, is being violated by the opposite parties. The opposite parties have filed the counter affidavit dated 05.05.2011. In paragraphs-11, 16 and 17 of the counter affidavit, the opposite parties have clearly stated that they are maintaining status quo and they just wanted to change the gate which was in dilapidated condition which they stopped after they received notice from the applicants.
In view of the aforesaid, this contempt application is dismissed at this stage with liberty to the applicants to file a fresh contempt application, if the opposite parties violate the aforesaid interim order passed in the First Appeal.
Order Date :- 12.12.2019 NLY
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the opposite parties violated the status quo order by intending to change a dilapidated gate.
Suresh Chand Singhal And Another
Surya Prakash Kesarwani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
