A contempt application was called in Court No. 17. The respondent submitted compliance with a prior order. The applicant was absent and failed to press the petition. The court dismissed the application for want of prosecution.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:78425
Court No. - 17
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 4312 of 2024
Applicant :- Kaushlya Opposite Party :- Sri Pradeep Kumar Singh, Tehsildar, Tehsil Milkipur, Ayodhya Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Dhar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Prabhakar Tiwari
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
Case has been called.
Sri Prabhakar Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that in compliance of the judgment and order dated 16.04.2024 passed in Matter Under Article 227 No. 1859 of 2024, the proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been decided by order dated 26.11.2024.
None is present on behalf of the petitioner to press this petition nor any request has been made for adjournment of the case.
Accordingly, the present contempt petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Notice, issued earlier, if any, stands discharged.
Order Date :- 26.11.2024 Nitesh
Digitally signed by :- NITESH KUMAR TEWARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Kaushlya
Sri Pradeep Kumar Singh
Manish Kumar
Nitesh Kumar Tewary
As recorded by the court registry
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
