Applicant filed a contempt application alleging willful disobedience of this Court's order dated 17.7.2015 by the opposite party executing a sale deed. The Court held the application was misconceived and not maintainable.
Contempt application dismissed as misconceived and not maintainable.
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:151715
Court No. - 1
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 6089 of 2024
Applicant :- Ram Murat Opposite Party :- Smt Asha Devi And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Mishra
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
The present application has been filed pleading willful disobedience of the order dated 17.7.2015 passed by this Court in Writ C No.39310 of 2015.
It has been pleaded in the application that the opposite party no.1 has disobeyed the order of this Court by executing a sale deed dated 16.4.2024 in favour of opposite party no. 2 & 3.
A reading of the order dated 17.7.2015 shows that the plot of the applicant who was ostensibly the owner of the property, was put on auction because of default for payment of maintenance as determined in proceedings registered under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the sale was confirmed in favour of opposite party no.1.
Consequently, the Sub Divisional Magistrate vide his order dated 27.9.2011 directed that the sale deed be executed in favour of opposite party no.1. The order dated 27.9.2011 was challenged by the petitioner in Revision which was dismissed by order dated 11.6.2015. The order dated 27.9.2011 and 11.6.2015 were challenged by the applicant in Writ C No.39310 of 2015. This Court vide its order dated 17.7.2015 stayed the operation of the order dated 27.9.2011 and 11.6.2015.
The interim order passed by the writ Court could have been disobeyed by the revenue authorities by executing a sale deed in pursuance to the order dated 27.9.2011 in case no sale deed was executed before order dated 17.7.2015. Execution of sale deed by the opposite party no.1 may be an act without authority and may or may not confer any right on the opposite party nos. 2 & 3 but the act is not in violation of the orders passed by this Court. It is not the case of the applicant that after the order dated 17.7.2015, any revenue authority has executed a sale deed in pursuance to the order
dated 27.9.2011. Even if any such sale deed had been executed after 17.7.2015, disobedience would have been committed by the vendors and not by the purchasers of the property.
The contempt application is misconceived and is not maintainable and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 18.9.2024 IB
Digitally signed by :- ITU BANERJEE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the contempt application filed alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 17.7.2015 is maintainable.
Ram Murat
Salil Kumar Rai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
