Disposed

Raj Kumar Ojha and Another v. Sri Ajay Chaurasiya, Upayukt

Allahabad HC17 Dec 2020CAPL/4542/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt application concerning alleged willful non-compliance of an interim stay order in a pending writ petition regarding possession of premises, the court found that the interim order had not been extended and proceedings were still pending. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to dispense with the presence of the opposite party and disposed of the application without holdi

What did the court decide?

Contempt application disposed of without holding wilful non-compliance; opposite party's presence dispensed with; applicants directed to file urgent hearing application in main writ petition.

Raj Kumar Ojha and Another Vs Sri Ajay Chaurasiya, Upayukt — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 4542 of 2020 Applicant :- Raj Kumar Ojha and another Opposite Party :- Sri Ajay Chaurasiya, Upayukt Counsel for Applicant :- Diwakar Tiwari,Shrikant Chaturvedi

¶3

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶4

Heard Shri Diwakar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants.

¶5

The matter was taken up on 20.11.2020 and on the said date, the Court had proceeded to pass following order:-

¶6

"It appears from the record that the writ petition was not listed after initial order of stay granted on 31.8.2017.

¶7

Be that as it may be the respondents have given a notice which appears has been given in the month of December, 2019 and the petitioner has replied to the same in the month of August, 2020. He may file application for urgent hearing of the writ petition as this Court is not aware whether the injunction has been continued or not.

¶8

Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer that the opposite party is trying to flout the order of this Court dated 31.8.2017 whereby the Division Bench in Writ C No.39476 of 2017 had stayed the eviction from the premises till the next date of listing.

¶9

The respondent issued notices to the petitioner which replied by the petitioner.

¶10

The record which is before this Court shows that the matter is still pending but it is not known whether the stay has been extended from time to time as the record does not diverge whether the matter was listed after first date of hearing. The status report shows that the matter to be pending but what date the status report was applied is blank.

¶11

It goes without saying that it appears that the respondents have not taken action till date. In that case they may appear before this Court on 17.12.2020 on the reply.

¶12

List this matter on 17.12.2020 Writ C No.39476 of 2017 before the Court assigning such matters."

¶13

In response of the aforesaid order, Shri K.R. Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, on the basis of instruction, submits that the present contempt application has been preferred for wilful non-compliance of the interim order dated 31.8.2017 passed in Writ C No.39476 of 2017, wherein the Division Bench had clearly proceeded to observe that "in view of the fact that the petitioner has been staying in the premises in question for the past 20 years, we direct that the petitioner shall not be evicted from the premises in question till the next date of listing. " He submits that thereafter the matter was listed on

¶14

05.10.2017 and on the said date, the interim order has not been extended. While filing the present contempt application the applicant has not made any averment that the aforesaid interim order has been extended by this Court. It has also been apprised that the said interim order has not been served upon the opposite party.

¶15

Confronted with this situation, learned counsel for the applicant very fairly states that admittedly, the interim order has not been extended. However, the proceedings are still pending consideration.

¶16

In the facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to hold that there is any wilful non-compliance of the interim order and the presence of the opposite party is dispensed with. However, it is always open to the applicants to press their reliefs in the pending writ petition.

¶17

The present contempt application is disposed of.

¶18

Order Date :- 17.12.2020 RKP

Raj Kumar Ojha and Another v. Sri Ajay Chaurasiya, Upayukt

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar Ojha and Another v. Sri Ajay Chaurasiya, Upayukt

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Babu Nandan Vs Sri Dinesh Mishra, S.D.M. and 3 Others

Mohd. Firoz Vs Praveen Kumar Tiwari, District Basic Education Officer

Ratnesh Yadav Vs Raj Kumar Vishwakarma Chairman and Another

Manti Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

mohammad yakub Vs suhas l.y., collector/ district magistrate and another

Ramji Vs Sri T. Venktesh, Principle Secretary, Ministry of Irrigation and 3 Others