Dismissed

Hem Chandra Jain and Another v. Devendra Kumar Jain and Another

Allahabad HC11 Sept 2025CAPL/2907/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt application for alleged non-compliance with an Additional Commissioner's interim order in a revenue proceeding was dismissed. The court held an effective remedy for compliance exists under Chapter 43 Clause 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual, and contempt jurisdiction should not be invoked where execution remedies are available.

What did the court decide?

None; contempt application dismissed.

Hem Chandra Jain and Another vs Devendra Kumar Jain and… — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2907 of 2025

¶3

Hem Chandra Jain And Another

¶4

Versus	.....Applicant(s)
Devendra Kumar Jain And Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Karuna Kant Gupta :

¶5

Court No. - 8

¶6

HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

¶7

The present contempt application has wrongly been filed under Section 12 instead of Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the alleged non-compliance of interim order dated 20.11.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya in Case No.2508 of 2024.

¶8

On being asked from the learned counsel for the applicant whether the remedy is available with the applicant for execution / implementation / non-compliance of the interim order passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) in the proceeding under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, he shows inability to reply the same.

¶9

After hearing learned counsel for the applicant and going through the record of the case, it is found that for compliance of interim order dated 20.11.2024 passed in Case No.2508 of 2024 by Additional Commissioner (Judicial), the applicant has remedy to move an application under Chapter 43 Clause 460 of U.P. Revenue Court Manual for compliance of a decree or order passed by the Board of Revenue under the provision of Code, 2006. This issue has already been decided by this Court by order dated 2.2.2021 in Contempt No.240 of 2021, the relevant paras of the order is quoted hereinbelow:

¶10

"..........4. A question before this Court would be as to whether the present contempt petition filed under Section 10 of the Act, 1971 praying for initiation of contempt proceedings against an order passed by the Board of Revenue would be maintainable. for deciding this question, the Court has taken the assistance of Sri. H.K.Bhatt, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel.

¶11

5. The Apex Court in the case of E. Bapanaiah vs. K.S. Raju reported in

¶12

CAPL No. 2907 of 2025

¶13

¶14

(2015) 1 SCC 451, has held as under:-

¶15

"25. Powers of the High Courts to punish for contempt including the powers to punish for contempt of itself flow from Article 215 of the Constitution of India. Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 empowers the High Courts to punish contempts of its subordinate courts which reads as under: -

¶16

"10. Power of High Court to punish contempts of subordinate courts. - Every High Court shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction, powers and authority, in accordance with the same procedure and practice, in respect of contempts of courts subordinate to it as it has and exercises in respect of contempts of itself:

¶17

Provided that no High Court shall take cognizance of a contempt alleged to have been committed in respect of a court subordinate to it where such contempt is an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).

¶18

27. The present case relates to a civil contempt wherein an undertaking given to Company Law Board is breached. Normally, the general provisions made under the Contempt of Courts Act are not invoked by the High Courts for forcing a party to obey orders passed by its subordinate courts for the simple reason that there are provisions contained in Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to get executed its orders and decrees. It is settled principle of law that where there are special law and general law, the provisions of special law would prevail over general law. As such, in normal circumstances a decree holder cannot take recourse of Contempt of Courts Act else it is sure to throw open a floodgate of litigation under contempt jurisdiction. It is not the object of the Contempt of Courts Act to make decree holders rush to the High Courts simply for the reason that the decree passed by the subordinate court is not obeyed."

¶19

6. From the perusal of the aforesaid judgment in the case of K.S. Raju (Supra), it is apparent that the power exercised by the High Court under Section 10 of the Act, 1971 can be exercised where there is no provision for execution or compliance of such orders meaning thereby that where there is an effective remedy for enforcing the order of court below, then the High Court would be justified in declining to entertain the contempt petition.

¶20

18. For this, the Court has taken the assistance of the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Court Manual (hereinafter referred to as "Manual") which provides in Chapter 43 Clause 460 for compliance of a decree or order passed by the Board of Revenue under the provisions of the Code, 2006 or rules framed under the provisions of Code, 2006. Clause 460 clearly

¶21

CAPL No. 2907 of 2025

¶22

¶23

provides that any decree or order passed under the provisions of the Code, 2006 can be executed as per the procedure prescribed in Chapter 5 of the Manual. "

¶24

In view of the above facts, circumstances and discussion made hereinabove, the contempt application is dismissed.

¶25

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶26

December 15, 2025

¶27

S. Kumar

¶28

Digitally signed by :- SANTOSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Hem Chandra Jain and Another v. Devendra Kumar Jain and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hem Chandra Jain and Another v. Devendra Kumar Jain and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Awadhesh Kumar Pandey vs Sri Rakesh Kumar Distt. Inspector of Schools Lko. and Another

Smt. Asha Rani Chaurasia vs Sri Rakesh Kumar, Distt. Inspector of Schools Lko. and Another

Anmol Puri @ Bala vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ram Kumar Vishwakarma vs Shri Rajiv Kumar Srivastava, Addl. General Manager / Unit Head Ltd. Iti, Raibareli and Another

Ravi Kumar Seth vs Smt. Neha Awasthi, Chairman, Nagar Palika Parisad, Sitapur and Another

Pradeep Gond and 2 Others vs Mr. Lakko Venkateshwarlu-Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Social Welfare Chairman Lko.