Dismissed¶11

Smt. Tara Devi and 6 Others v. Ram Janak Singh

Allahabad HC12 Nov 2024SPLAD/603/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Division Bench: Attau Rahman Masoodi and Subhash Vidyarthi, JJ.), Neutral Citation 2024:AHC-LKO:74404-DB; Special Appeal Defective No.603 of 2024, decided 12.11.2024. Keywords: condonation of delay; intra-court special appeal; rejection of contempt application (Contempt Application (Civil) No.1581 of 2024, order dated 06.05.2024); underlying order dated 23.08.2001 in Second Appeal No.324 of 2001 (Tara Devi v. Babu Lal); alleged sale deed of 2006; mutation objections filed 2007; limitation/laches in contempt proceedings; recall application rejected 19.09.2024; no interference with contempt court order.

What did the court decide?

Delay in filing the special appeal condoned (IA-01 of 2024 allowed); however, the special appeal itself is dismissed and the impugned contempt-court order is left undisturbed.

Smt. Tara Devi and 6 Others Vs Ram Janak Singh — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:74404-DB

¶2

Court No. - 1

¶3

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 603 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Smt. Tara Devi And 6 Others Respondent :- Ram Janak Singh Counsel for Appellant :- Abhishek Srivastava,Shweta Srivastava,Vikas Verma

¶5

Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Order on IA-01 of 2024:

¶7

Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and perused the records.

¶8

This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the special appeal, which is duly supported by an affidavit and the cause of delay has been explained to the satisfaction of the court.

¶9

Accordingly, application is allowed.

¶10

The delay in filing special appeal is hereby condoned.

¶11

Order on memo of special appeal:

¶12

The intra court appeal filed by the appellants is directed against the judgment/order rendered in Contempt Application (Civil) No.1581 of 2024, decided on 06.05.2024. The Contempt Court while rejecting the contempt application has specifically recorded that the cause giving rise to the contempt proceedings in the year 2006 was agitated by the present appellants in the year 2024.

¶13

On a perusal of the contempt application as well as

¶14

supplementary affidavit filed in support whereof, we are unable to gather as to when the order dated 23.08.2001, passed in Second Appeal No.324 of 2001 (Smt. Tara Devi and others Vs. Babu Lal and others) was actually served upon the respondents impleaded in the second appeal.

¶15

The Hon'ble Single Judge has recorded in the order dated 06.05.2024 that it is evident from the record that alleged sale deed was executed in the year 2006 and contempt application has been filed in the year 2024.

¶16

While assailing the aforesaid order, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the factum of sale deed having been executed in the year 2006 was not in the knowledge of the appellant. However, the appellants had filed an application for recall of order dated 06.05.2024, which has been rejected by means of an order dated 19.09.2024 and it is recorded therein that the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that mutation proceedings have been instituted in furtherance of the sale deed in question in which the appellants had filed objections in the year 2007.

¶17

From the aforesaid submission made on behalf of the appellants themselves that they had filed objections against the mutation application way back in the year 2007, the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that sale deed in question was not in the knowledge of the appellant till the year 2024 stands belied.

¶18

When the contempt proceedings were heavily time barred we do not find any error in the judgment/order passed by the contempt court on Contempt Application (Civil) No.1581 of 2024. The impugned judgment therefore in absence of any

¶19

illegality pointed out by the appellants does not call for any interference in exercise of appellate powers of this court.

¶20

Accordingly, the special appeal is dismissed .

¶21

[Subhash Vidyarthi, J.] [A.R. Masoodi, J.

¶22

Order Date :- 12.11.2024 Ram.

¶23

Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Tara Devi and 6 Others v. Ram Janak Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Tara Devi and 6 Others v. Ram Janak Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Distt. Basic Edu. Officer Dist. Sitapur Vs Manju Mishra and Another

Shailendra Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko and 7 Others

State of Up. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Horticulture Govt. Lko and 2 Others Vs Santosh Kumar

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 3 Others vs Vikram Virendra Singh

Ayushi Katheriya vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development Lko. and 4 Others

Smt. Tara Devi and 6 Others vs Ram Janak Singh