Dismissed¶17

Jamal Khan v. Nisar Khan

Allahabad HC12 Feb 2026CAPL/4459/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, Court No. 8; Contempt Application (CIVIL) No. 4459 of 2024 (running title 'CAPL No. 4459 of 2024'); Jamal Khan v. Nisar Khan; Manish Kumar, J.; decided February 12, 2026; Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; non-compliance of interim order dated 23.07.2021; status-quo; third party rights; sale deed dated 30.11.2023; Consolidation Officer final order dated 16.11.2023; Consolidation No. 15447 of 2021; revision allowed on 12.09.2024; dismissal of contempt application; notice discharged.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the applicant; notice, if any, stands discharged. ¶17

Jamal Khan vs Nisar Khan — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 4459 of 2024

¶3

Jamal Khan

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

		Versus
Nisar Khan			.....	Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: :	Mohammad Ehtesham Yogendra Mishra, Tripathi, Saket Kumar	Khan Rakesh Tripathi	Kumar

¶6

Court No. - 8

¶7

HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

¶8

The present contempt application has been preferred against the alleged non compliance of the interim order dated 23.07.2021 passed in Consolidation No. 15447 of 2021. The relevant paragraph of the same is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶9

"Since, the matter is already fixed before the authority concerned on 05.08.2021 and the order of status-quo is subsisting, it is expected that the parties shall be cautious and shall not create any third party rights."

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that despite the interim order passed in the writ petition, the respondent has executed the sale deed on 30.11.2023, hence the respondent is liable to be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

¶11

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the counter affidavit has been filed enclosing therein the copy of the final order dated 16.11.2023 passed by the Consolidation Officer and thereafter on 30.11.2023, the sale deed was executed. The protection was given pending decision of the case by Consolidation Officer.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant is unable to dispute the submission made by learned counsel for the respondent but he has submitted that against the order dated 16.11.2023, revision was filed which was allowed on 12.09.2024 but unable to dispute this fact that during the period 16.11.2023 till 12.09.2024, no interim order was in existence and the sale deed was executed prior to final order passed in the revision.

¶13

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, it is found that in the interim order, the writ Court has observed that in the matter pending before the Consolidation Officer, the next date fixed in 05.08.2021 and the order of status-quo is subsisting, it is expected that the

¶14

CAPL No. 4459 of 2024

¶15

¶16

parties shall be cautious and shall not create any third party rights, so this protection was till the pendency of the matter before the Consolidation Officer. Since it is an admitted case of the applicant also that the Consolidation Officer has finally decided the matter on 16.11.2023 and thereafter, the sale deed was executed, hence it cannot be said that the respondent has violated the interim order dated 23.07.2021.

¶17

In view of the facts, circumstances and discussion made hereinabove, the present contempt application is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.

¶18

Notice, if any, stands discharged.

¶19

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶20

February 12, 2026

¶21

Nitesh

¶22

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

Jamal Khan v. Nisar Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jamal Khan v. Nisar Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Daya Pratap Pal vs Sri Gyanendra Pratap Director General of Police C.R.P.F. New Delhi and Another

Lakhan Singh vs Mr. Manish Chauhan Prin. Secy. General Administration Govt. Sectt. Lko.

Ankita vs Shri Hub Lal, Nayab Tehsildar, Tehsil Alapur Circle Jahangeerganj Dist. Ambedkar Nagar

Divakar Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Munna Lal and Others vs Ajay Chauhan Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. Lko. and Others

Smt. Soni Devi vs Dr. Surya Prakash Singh, Distt. Inspector of Schools, Unnao