Contempt application regarding compliance with an earlier order under Section 34 of the U.P. L.A. Act, 1901; counsel conceded compliance was made and sought dismissal as infructuous.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW
CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2338 of 2025
Susheel Kumar Pandey
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
Atul Pal Nayab Tehsildar Gonda Dist. Gonda And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ganga Prasad Mishra, Abhinav Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :
Court No. - 17
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.
Learned Standing Counsel has received instruction from the respondent, copy of which has been placed during course of argument, which is taken on record.
Learned counsel for the applicant has very fairly submitted that in compliance of the judgment and order dated 26.03.2025 passed in Matter Under Article 227 No.1653 of 2025, the case of the applicant filed under Section 34 of U.P. L.A. Act, 1901 has been decided and for all practical purposes, the present contempt petition has become infructuous and the same may be dismissed as infructuous.
As such, the present contempt application is dismissed as infructuous.
Notice issued earlier, if any, stand discharged.
(Manish Kumar,J.)
September 1, 2025
S. Kumar
Digitally signed by :- SANTOSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Susheel Kumar Pandey
Atul Pal Nayab Tehsildar Gonda Dist. Gonda
Another
Manish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
