Contempt application alleging violation of a 2013 interim status-quo order by executing an agreement to sell. The court held that an agreement to sell transfers neither title nor possession, so no contempt was made out, and dismissed the application.
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. - 2298 of 2024
Shyam Behari And Another
.....Applicant(s)
| Versus | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Ayodhya Prasad And Others | .... | .Opposite Party(s) |
|
| Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s) |
: Akshat Kumar, Srivastava : |
Sanjay | Kumar |
Court No. - 8
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.
The present contempt application has been preferred for alleged non compliance of interim order dated 29.04.2013 passed in Consolidation No. 262 of 2013, whereby the writ Court has granted an order of status-quo, which reads as under:-
"Status quo, as it exists today, will be maintained by the parties and no 3rd party right will be created, till further orders of this Court."
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the respondent nos. 1 to 5 have executed an agreement to sell on 20.09.2023, which amounts to violation of the interim order passed by the writ Court, as the title has been transferred.
On being asked from the learned counsel for the applicant that by executing an agreement to sell whether the title is transferred to the person in whose favour the agreement to sell has been executed, he has very fairly submitted that by executing an agreement to sell, no title is transferred in the property.
After hearing learned counsel for the applicants and going through the record of the case, it is found that by agreement to sell, no title is transferred and from perusal of the agreement to sell, it is found that even the possession has not been given to the persons in whose favour, the agreement to sell has been executed. Hence, no case of contempt is made out.
In view of above, the present contempt application is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.
CAPL No. 2298 of 2024
2
Notice, if any, stands discharged.
(Manish Kumar,J.)
March 11, 2026 Nitesh
Digitally signed by :- NITESH KUMAR TEWARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Whether execution of an agreement to sell, after an interim status-quo order in a writ proceeding, violates that order so as to constitute contempt.
Shyam Behari
Another
Ayodhya Prasad
Others
Manish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
4 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
