Petitioners filed a contempt petition for non‑compliance with a status quo order dated 03.04.2000. The Court found that construction had been raised but held that as Second Appeal was pending, the contempt proceeding was dropped.
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.
IN THE HIGH COIJRT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR
tCHHATTISGARH)
OF 2004
CONTEMPT PETITION N0.31
-^ ^' PETITIONER: ^ ^6Li^ ^.^-^. tf^> -^e^C-' •;;;^-^^..,.ft. pt^
•^Chhannu Lal Gond, S/o Munni Lal Gond Aged about 67 years R/'o Mahamaya Road Ambikapur, District: Surguja (C.G.)
^Smt. Rabiya Khatoon, W/o Ashiq Ali, R/o Parra Dand, Ambikapur,
RESPONDENT/: CONTEMNOR
•:il
District: Surguja (C.G.)
CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 215 01-1 THE CONSTrTUTION OF DTOIA READ WITH SECTION 12 QFTHE COMTEMPT OF COURT ACT, 1971 ;
ahuitBi
•fs
y,.tilRte..^
petitioner No-' (A) Aniket Kumar, S/o Late Shri Chhannu ^' ^" ^ /^'/?' Lal Gond, aged about 44 years, R/o /^f^ // !^ ' LS^ Mahamaya Road, Ambikapur (C.G.) if ^/w PetitioerNo. 1 (B) Smt. Ishraji Devi, W/o Late Chhannu Lal Gond, aged about 73 years, rf R/o Mahamaya Road, Ambikapur (.C.G.^ to ^,1'!,1'! ^ ^fl^IV^IV Petitioner No. 1 (C) Smt. Girija Devi, W/o Late ^ Shri Dinesh Kumar, aged about 50 years, R/o Mahamaya Road, Ambikapur (C.G.) Petitioner No. 1 (D) Abhishek Kumar, S/o Late Shri Dinesh Kumar, aged about 24 years, R7o Mahamaya Road, Ambikapur (C.G.)
rf
to ^,1'!,1'!
^
^fl^IV^IV
^
n
(3^
^531 '^iyipi'y, yTfl«'is, Ri<?ii«y
'^ii'.J—i^-"'
^^
WR^T 3Wf^..^.t:.;.l??<t;..3(./.%..'?R 201
OT^TT?5Ri(
| 3TR^T^)Tf^f ^(T3ll^*^ |
isnsR^rftcTSIT^I | *l'yfrl''D-lKWdI'?fei<fl •tRltdK ^isiRmgii^r |
|---|---|---|
| SB:HON'BLE SHRI SANJAX K. AGl 07.04.2015 |
RAWAL , J |
|
| Shri BD Guru, counsel Shri AK Prasad, counsell f |
||
| Alleging non-complianc' 03.04.2000 passed inS.A.No. has filed this contempt peti Respondent's/plaintiff' trial court as well as by She preferred Second Appeal court in which order Operative portion of said or dat^ |
d of court's order dated |
|
| "In the meanwhile, the |
to maintain the status today and the responde^ construction on the dl furtber orders." |
|
| In the order dated 03.0. |
that parties to maintain |
|
| jdirected the petitioner h |
construction on the disput brders. |
~T
^ro[ .<4|«1<?1^, yJl'M'llS, (alrtl'My
TTPTcTT ^OT^i.................................^FT 201
sn^rqsRRf
| .3tR?qilR-li+ 'cTS.H31)^sh^ |
^BTSR^fitTOT^I .-.-"? |
+!^Td^'1^ltidl'^fs^ <f'i1<<il^. ^aiRman^r |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| conteif Allegation of |
ipt | petitioner is that |
|
| respondent has constructed |
upon | disputed portion of |
|
| »er | land. | ||
| inder | The fact remains that o was passed 'expressly restra^ to raise construction. status-quo, but the construction over the disput |
s'uch, looking to the fact and material available on re |
Appeal, I do not consider |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the respondent's construction on disputed land amounts to contempt of a status quo order.
Chhannu Lal Gond
Smt. Rabiya Khatoon
Sanjay K. Rawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
