Jitendra Singh Rajput Vs Asha Semual — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Jitendra Singh Rajput Vs Asha Semual — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents committed willful violation (contempt) of the interim orders dated 24.09.2010 and 05.08.2011 passed in First Appeal No. 111/2010 (staying execution of the decree as to possession) by obtaining the Tahsildar, Bagbahara's order dated 24.03.2025 directing possession of the subject property to them.

Court's answer

From the Tahsildar, Bagbahara's order dated 24.03.2025 it reflects that the interim orders dated 24.09.2010 and 05.08.2011 were not continued further after 04.04.2022, and the Tahsildar therefore proceeded on the respondents' application and passed the order.

Ratio / Principle

Except for the interim orders dated 24.09.2010 and 05.08.2011 themselves, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted no document showing continuation of the interim order from the date of filing of the respondents' application before the Tahsildar, Bagbahara.

Key takeaways

Even otherwise, the petitioner has another remedy available to challenge the order passed by the Tahsildar in an appropriate proceeding.ratio¶5
In view of the above, the Court did not find any willful violation of the impugned order.ratio¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt — willful violation of interim orders — stay of execution of decree as to possession — First Appeal No. 111/2010. The petitioner alleged that despite interim orders dated 24.09.2010 and 05.08.2011 passed by a coordinate bench in First Appeal No. 111/2010 (staying execution of the impugned decree so far as it related to possession), the respondents applied to the Tahsildar, Bagbahara for execution and possession, and the Tahsildar by order dated 24.03.2025 directed possession of the subject land to them. Examining the Tahsildar's order, the Court observed that the interim orders had not been continued after 04.04.2022, that apart from the interim orders themselves the petitioner furnished no document evidencing their continuation as on the date of the respondents' application, and that the petitioner had another remedy to challenge the Tahsildar's order in appropriate proceedings. Finding no willful violation, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. dismissed the contempt petition on 12/06/2025.

1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CONT No. 762 of 2025

1 - Jitendra Singh Rajput S/o Shri Harilal Singh Aged About 37 Years R/o Ward No. 7, Bagbahra, District Mahasamund (C.G.)

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - Asha Semual D/o S. Prakash Aged About 46 Years R/o Ward No. 44, Near Himachal Ice Factory, Post Ravigram, Telibandha, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

2 - Meena Semual D/o S. Prakash Aged About 43 Years R/o Ward No. 44, Near Himachal Ice Factory, Post Ravigram, Telibandha, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

3 - Sudha Semual D/o S. Prakash Aged About 41 Years R/o Ward No. 44, Near Himachal Ice Factory, Post Ravigram, Telibandha, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

4 - A. Prakash S/o Late Martin Masih Prakash Aged About 65 Years R/o S.M- 23, Shiv Mandir Lane, Avinti Vihar, Post Ravigram, Raipur (C.G.)

5 - Usharani Povel Wd/o Late J. Povel Aged About 65 Years R/o Jhalap Chowk, Bagbahra, Tahsil Bagbahra, District Mahasamund (C.G.)

6 - Jugal Kishore Patel Tahsildar Bagbahra, Tahsil Bagbahra, District Mahasamund (C.G.)

			... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s)	: Ms. Anushka Paranjpe, Advo	Sharma, on cate.	behalf of Mr. Manoj

2

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.

Order on Board

12/06/2025

Heard.

The present contempt petition has been filed for willful violation of the interim order dated 24.09.2010 and 05.08.2011 passed in First Appeal No. 111/2010, whereby the execution of the impugned decree so far as it relates to possession was stayed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that despite the interim order dated 24.09.2010 and 05.08.2011 passed by the coordinate bench by this Court in First Appeal No. 111/2010, the respondents have filed an application before the Tahsildar, Bagbahara for execution of the decree and for possession of the said land, in which Tahsildar has passed an order on 24.03.2025 and passed the order for possession of the subject property to the respondents, which is willful violation of the interim order dated 24.09.2010 and 05.08.2011 passed in First Appeal No. 111/2010.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents annexed with the petition.

From perusal of the order passed by Tahsildar, Bagbahara dated 24.03.2025, it reflects that the interim order dated 24.09.2010 and 05.08.2011 has not been continued further after 04.04.2022, therefore, the Tahsildar, Bagbahara has proceeded on the application made by the respondents and to pass the order, except for the order dated 24.09.2010 and 05.08.2011 learned counsel for the petitioner has not submitted any document with respect to the continuation of the interim

3

order dated 24.09.2010 and 05.08.2011 from the date of filing of the application of the respondents before the Tahsildar, Bagbahara. Even otherwise the petitioner has another remedy to challenge the order passed by Tahsildar in appropriate proceeding.

In view of the above, I do not find any willful violation of the impugned order.

Accordingly, the present contempt petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge

Alok
Digitally signed
by ALOK
ALOK SHARMA
SHARMA Date:2025.06.13
10:29:56
+0530