Dismissed¶11

Pavan Kumar and 3 Others v. Falguni Singh, Additional Sub Divisional Magistrate Sadar Lko.

Allahabad HC23 Apr 2025CAPL/75/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: civil contempt; disobedience of writ court order; status quo; Sub-Divisional Magistrate Sadar Lucknow; Writ C No.3622 of 2024; order dated 23.4.2024; inquiry into status quo as on 18.7.2023; Partition Suit No.17041 of 2023; Chintaram Yadav; Ram Pratap Yadav; Madhuram Yadav; power of attorney; plotting; sale deed; compliance affidavit; no contempt made out; application rejected; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Rajeev Singh, J.; decided 23.4.2025.

What did the court decide?

Considering the submissions of counsel, the contents of the application and the order of the writ court, no contempt is made out; the contempt application is rejected. ¶11

Pavan Kumar and 3 Others Vs Falguni Singh, Additional Sub Divisional Magistrate Sadar Lko. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:23020

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 75 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Pavan Kumar And 3 Others Opposite Party :- Falguni Singh, Additional Sub Divisional Magistrate Sadar Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Shukla

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

1. Heard.

¶7

The present contempt application is filed with the prayer to summon and punish the opposite party for committing contempt of order dated 23.4.2024 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Writ C No.3622 of 2024.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that Partition Suit was filed by Chintaram Yadav (father of applicant nos.1 to 3 & husband of the applicant no.4), which was going on, in the meantime, some construction was being raised over the property in question despite the order of maintaining status quo passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate Sadar, Lucknow, then Writ C No.3622 of 2024 was filed before this Court, which was disposed of on 23.4.2024 with the observation that S.D.M., Sadar, Lucknow to undertake an inquiry as to what was the status quo existing on 18.7.2023 with respect to the land/house in question, who was in possession and also as to whether the construction in question has started after passing the order dated 18.7.2023, if so, then he shall ensure that this status quo order is complied in accordance with law unless there is some other order of any higher Court or forum, which may be in favour of the defendant in a particular suit and the S.D.M. will resolve this matter within two weeks, it was also open for the parties to raise all pleas before the S.D.M. in this regard, which shall also be considered.

¶9

Sri Mohit Jauhari, learned Standing Counsel filed comprehensive compliance affidavit and submits that applicants are the legal heirs of Chintaram Yadav and admittedly, Chintaram Yadav filed a

¶10

partition suit and at the same time, he alongwith other brothers executed power of attorney in favour of their real brother, Madhuram Yadav, as a result, Madhuram Yadav was doing plotting over plot in question and executing sale deed to the purchasers. He also submits that Partition Suit No.17041 of 2023, 'Chintaram Yadav Vs. Ram Pratap Yadav & Ors' is already decided by the respondent on 27.2.2025 and learned counsel for the applicant also admitted that appeal has already been preferred against the aforesaid order.

¶11

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, going through the contents of the application as well as order of the writ court, this Court is of the view that no contempt is made out, accordingly, the same is hereby, rejected .

¶12

Order Date :- 23.4.2025 GauraV/-

¶13

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Pavan Kumar and 3 Others v. Falguni Singh, Additional Sub Divisional Magistrate Sadar Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pavan Kumar and 3 Others v. Falguni Singh, Additional Sub Divisional Magistrate Sadar Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Bhawan Vs Sri Rajneesh Mathur, Dy. Director General, National Statistics Office Field Operation Division, Lko

Kallu and Another Vs Indra Vikram Singh, Director Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad U.P. Lucknow

Hifza Fatima Thru. Her Father Mohammad Sajid vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Others

Radheshyam Vs Renu Mishra, S.D.M. Mitauli Kheri

Ram Sajivan Vs Shri. Ajay Chauhan, Chairman, U.P. Rajkiyanirman Nigam Ltd., Gomti Nagar Lko. and Another

Suresh Chandra Vs Dr. Mahendra Dev Singh Director Secondary Edu. Lko.