Disposed

Mohd. Sharif v. Sri Pushpendra Singh Gill, Civil Judge J.D., Ii, Bahraich

Allahabad HC29 Jul 2024CAPL/2919/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant filed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with an Article 226 order dated 04.04.2023 directing the Civil Judge, Bahraich, to dispose of an execution case within one year. The respondent sought an adjournment. Upon receiving written instructions that the trial court was expediting the case, the court disposed of the application with a direction to ensure compliance.

What did the court decide?

The contempt application was disposed of with an observation that the court below shall ensure compliance of the directions issued by the writ court.

Mohd. Sharif vs Sri Pushpendra Singh Gill, Civil… — Execution and Attachment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:65888

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2919 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Mohd. Sharif Opposite Party :- Sri Pushpendra Singh Gill, Civil Judge J.D., Ii, Bahraich Counsel for Applicant :- Abdul Alim Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- Gaurav Mehrotra

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

The present contempt application has been filed for the alleged non compliance of the order dated 04.04.2023 passed in Matters Under Article 227 No.1625 of 2023.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that execution case was not being decided by the competent court, therefore petition under Article 227 No. 1625 of 2023 was filed which was disposed of on 04.04.2023 with the following order:-

¶8

" Heard learned counsel for petitioner. In view of order being passed, notices to opposite parties stand dispensed with.

¶9

Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking a direction to the court concerned for expeditious disposal of execution case No.9 of 2020.

¶10

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that earlier a suit for permanent injunction had been filed by petitioner which was decreed on 22nd October, 2018 on the basis of compromise but since the same was not being adhered to, the aforesaid execution proceedings have been filed in which last opportunity has been granted to the defendants to file their objections, which have not yet been filed but only general dates are being allocated in the matter and therefore expedite orders are required to be passed.

¶11

Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner, the opposite party No.1 i.e. Civil Judge (J.D.), Bahraich, District Bahraich is directed to consider and decide execution case No.9 of 2020 (Mohd. Sharif versus Smt. Shahana Parveen and antoher) expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year from the date a certified copy of this order is brought on record of the proceedings in case there is no other legal impediment .

¶12

Benefit of this order shall be available to the petitioner only in case he cooperates with the proceedings.

¶13

With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of."

¶14

The aforesaid order was served on the competent court but it

¶15

was not complied with, therefore the contempt petition was filed. The respondent authority is deliberately violating the directions of this Court, therefore he may be summoned and punished accordingly.

¶16

Sri Shishir Jain, Special Counsel for the High Court has placed written instructions and informed that the trial court is trying its best efforts for conclusion of the proceedings and the same will be concluded expeditiously.

¶17

Considering the contents of the written instructions placed by Sri Shishir Jain, Special counsel for High Court, the present contempt application is disposed of with the observation that the court below shall ensure compliance of the directions issued by the writ court.

¶18

Order Date :- 23.9.2024 Renu/-

¶19

Digitally signed by :- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd. Sharif v. Sri Pushpendra Singh Gill, Civil Judge J.D., Ii, Bahraich

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Sharif v. Sri Pushpendra Singh Gill, Civil Judge J.D., Ii, Bahraich

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Raghunandanshitaldan Singh Memorial Trust, Thru. Its Manager Sri Santosh Singh, Azamgarh Vs Dr. B.N. Singh, Chairman, U.P. Homeopathic Medicine Board, Homeopathy Bhawan Lko. and Another

Habbu @ Ankur Saroj Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Home Deptt., Lko.

Adarsh Pratap Singh Vs Vineet Jaiswal, Superintendent of Police, Dist. Gonda and Another

Anushthan Tripathi Vs Sri Deepak Kumar, Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Police, Lko.

Rabindra Nath Pandey Vs Sanjay Pandey, Chief Executive Officer (Mukhya Karya Palak Adhikari) Distt. Coop., Bank Ltd. Unnao

Aditya Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko.