Dismissed

Ram Sakhi v. Shri Narsingh Narayan Verma, Tehsildar Judicial Tehsil Ramsanehighat Distt. Barabanki

Allahabad HC6 Mar 2025CAPL/604/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This contempt application challenged the respondent Tehsildar's failure to decide a matter within three months as directed by a writ court. The High Court found no wilful disobedience due to delays caused by lawyers' absence and official duties, and noted the application's announcement of bar by limitation.

What did the court decide?

The contempt application was dismissed with the finding of no wilful disobedience and recognition of the limitation bar.

Ram Sakhi Vs Shri Narsingh Narayan Verma, Tehsildar… — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:13836

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 604 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Ram Sakhi Opposite Party :- Shri Narsingh Narayan Verma, Tehsildar Judicial Tehsil Ramsanehighat Distt. Barabanki Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Pratap Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

The present contempt application has been preferred for the alleged non compliance of the judgment and order dated 21.09.2023 against the respondent namely Sri Narsingh Narayan Singh, Tehsildar (Judicial), Tehsil Ramsanehighat, District Barabanki. The relevant extract of the same is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶7

"Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that no gainful purpose will be served in keeping the aforesaid petition pending. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with direction to respondent No.-1 to consider and decide the pending proceedings of Case No. 5116 of 2022, Computerized Case No. T202204120205116 (Ram Sakhi Versus Ramdev) most expeditiously, after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties preferably within a period of three months from the next date fixed before it, if there is no other legal impediment in this regard.

¶8

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the authority concerned shall be free to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law."

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the judgment and order dated 21.09.2023 was served in the case pending before the Court of Tehsildar on 09.10.2023 and in place of deciding the matter within three months, as directed by the writ Court, the same has not been decided yet.

¶10

In the pre-lunch session, when the matter was taken up, the Court has asked the learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions in the matter by lunch and in the post lunch session, when the matter was taken up, learned Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions received has submitted that the respondent who was made party in the present contempt application was posted only for a period between 22.01.2025 to 24.02.2025 i.e. about a month and during this period, the case was listed only on 20.02.2025 and on that date, the lawyers were abstaining from judicial work. Thereafter, Smt. Priyanka Tripathi has been posted by order dated 24.02.2025 i.e. about two weeks ago.

¶11

It is further submitted that the present contempt application is barred by Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as one year period has already expired

¶12

on 10.01.2025 and the present contempt application has been preferred with a delay of more than one month i.e. filed on 28.02.2025.

¶13

On being asked from the learned counsel for the applicant as to whether any unnecessary adjournment was granted to either of the parties by the Court, he is unable to show from the order-sheets that at any point of time, any unnecessary adjournment was granted by the court of Tehsildar.

¶14

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, going through the record of the case and the order-sheets enclosed along with the present contempt application, it is found that after the service of the judgment and order passed by the writ Court on 09.10.2023, the case was listed on 22 occasions and out of which on 14 dates, the lawyers were abstaining from judicial work and on two dates, the Presiding Officer had gone to High Court in pairvi of some matter and on one date, the Presiding Officer was on election duty, so the matter could be taken up only on five dates.

¶15

In view of the facts and circumstances as discussed hereinabove, there is no wilful or intentional disobedience on the part of the respondent.

¶16

The present contempt application is hereby dismissed.

¶17

Order Date :- 6.3.2025 Nitesh

¶18

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

Ram Sakhi v. Shri Narsingh Narayan Verma, Tehsildar Judicial Tehsil Ramsanehighat Distt. Barabanki

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Sakhi v. Shri Narsingh Narayan Verma, Tehsildar Judicial Tehsil Ramsanehighat Distt. Barabanki

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

Aga Khan Vs Abhishek Anand, D.M., Sitapur

Dharmesh Rai Vs Sri Kunal Silku, Director, Training and Employment, Lko.

Jainual Ahmad Ansari Vs Sri Kunal Silku, Director, Training and Employment, Lko.

Deepak Kumar Tiwari @ Deppak Tiwari @ Deepak Tiwari vs Shri Pawan Singh Tehsildar Tehsil Patti Distt. Pratapgarh

Deena Nath Pathak and Others vs Smt. Monika Rani, D.M., Bahraich

Seth Singh vs State of Up and another