Contempt application dismissed for being misconceived as the applicant failed to prove the existence of an injunction in the impugned order concerning possession of property.
Contempt application dismissed.
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. - 2
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1132 of 2021
Applicant :- Ayodhya Prasad Rauniyar Opposite Party :- Ram Sajiwan Maurya, S.D.M. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Prakash Yadav,Krishna Nand Yadav
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Heard the learned counsel for the applicant.
Instant petition has been filed for flouting the order daed 30.05.2002 passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Class/Tehsildar Nichlaul, District Maharajganj/opposite party no. 1, whereby, the contesting parties were directed to take remedy before the civil court with regard to possession.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there was no injunction in respect of suit property. It is urged that the Gaon Sabha instituted a suit against the applicant for eviction and possession of the suit property. During pendency of the suit, it is submitted that structure standing on the plot has been demolished.
On specific query, learned counsel for the applicant is unable to show from the order dated 30.05.2002 or of the civil court that any injunction was granted in respect of the suit property.
In view of above, contempt petition being misconceived, is accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 19.3.2021 Mukesh Kr.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant contemned the order dated 30.05.2002 for lack of finding on a material fact regarding injunction.
Ayodhya Prasad Rauniyar
Ram Sajiwan Maurya
Suneet Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
