Dismissed¶44

Satvir Saini v. Jogendar Singh

Chhattisgarh HC14 Jan 2026CONT/190/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CONT CASE (C) No. 190 of 2021, High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur (Rajani Dubey, J; reserved 16-10-2025, decided 15-01-2026): Satvir Saini v. Jogendar Singh & others — civil contempt petition alleging willful disobedience of interim order dated 29.12.2020 in WP(227) No.524/2020 staying the petitioner's eviction from the suit shop; Panchanama of possession prepared at 11.30 a.m. before the order; prior knowledge and fabrication not proved; petition dismissed, contemnors discharged, contempt proceedings dropped. Keywords: civil contempt, willful disobedience, interim order, eviction, Panchanama, Rent Controlling Authority Korba.

What did the court decide?

To hold a party guilty of civil contempt, willful and deliberate disobedience of a court order, with prior knowledge thereof, must be clearly established. ¶41

Satvir Saini Vs Jogendar Singh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

		2026:CGHC:2518
The date	The date	The date when the order is uploaded on the
when the	when the	website
order is	order is
reserved	pronounced
		Operative Full
16-10-2025	15-01-2026	- 15-01-2026

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

Order reserved on : 16-10-2025

¶6

Order passed on : 15-01-2026

¶7

CONT CASE (C) No. 190 of 2021

¶8

Satvir Saini S/o Prem Singh Saini Aged About 49 Years R/o Tulsi Nagar, Korba, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh. Through His Wife Namely Anita Saini, Aged 45 Years, R/o Tulsi Nagar, Korba, Tahsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - Jogendar Singh S/o Late Mohan Singh R/o Rami Sagar Para, Darri Road, Ward No. 01, Korba Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh

¶12

2 - Germanjit Singh, S/o Jogendar Singh, R/o Rami Sagar Para, Darri Road, Ward No. 01, Korba Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh

¶13

3 - Suresh Sahu, Tahsildar, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

¶15

4 - Durgesh Sharma, Station House Officer, Kotwali, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶16

5 - Bunty Sharma, R/o Power House Road, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶17

6 - Mahendra Singh, R/o T.P. Nagar, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶18

... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. RS Baghel, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. RS Patel, Advocate.

¶19

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J

¶20

CAV Order

¶21

This petition arises out of the order dated 29.12.2020 passed by this Court in WP(227) No.524/2020 whereby the petitioner was granted interim protection against his eviction from the suit sop till the next date of hearing but respondent No.1 along with his associates flouted the said order.

¶22

Facts, in brief, of the case are that the petitioner filed a writ petition i.e. WP(227) No.524/2020 before this Court challenging the order dated 24.12.2020 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Korba in Case No.16/A-90/2018-19. On 29.12.2020 this Court issued notice to the respondents and granted interim protection to the petitioner, thereby staying the effect and operation of the order dated

¶23

¶24

24.12.2020 of the Rent Controlling Authority, Korba till the next date of hearing insofar as eviction of the petitioner from the suit shop alone is concerned. However, on the same day respondent No.1 along with 1520 persons came to the suit shop, abused and assaulted the son of the petitioner and threw the articles with the help of crane. Though the petitioner informed them about the interim order passed by this Court but they stated that they are not supposed to obey this order and torn the same. They also caught hold of his wife and one Preeti Sharma in an objectionable manner and dragged them. They complained of the said act of respondent No.1 and his associates to the police but no action was taken and after several requests, CSEB Chowki police took the wife and son of the petitioner for medical examination and suggested for x-ray. Thereafter, the police neither visited the spot nor lodged any report. Next day also respondent No.1 and his associates did not let the petitioner open the suit shop. On 1.1.2021 at about 6.30 am respondent No.1 and his associates broke open the lock and removed the heavy machinery installed in the suit shop with the help of Hydra machine. On intervention, they assaulted the petitioner and his children. Thereafter, instead of registering offence against them, the police took the petitioner and his children to police station and registered report against them. Though the petitioner, his wife and son submitted a detailed representation before the police authorities describing in detail the aforesaid incident and requested for taking

¶25

¶26

suitable action against the wrongdoers but no action was taken by them. Hence this petition.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that act of the respondents clearly amounts to willful disobedience of the order of this Court. On the date when interim order was passed by this Court, respondent No.1 with his associates came to the suit shop and by use of criminal force attempted to dispossess the petitioner from the suit shop. Though the petitioner informed them about the interim order but they categorically stated that they are not supposed to obey this order and torn the same in front of him. This shows that they have no regard to the orders passed by the Court and they deliberately disobeyed the order of this Court. Therefore, present is a fit case for initiating contempt proceedings against them and awarding them suitable punishment therefor.

¶28

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that on 29.12.2020 a team of Tahsildar, Revenue Inspector and concerned Patwari along with five other persons prepared a Panchanama report at about 11.30 am vide Annexure R-1/3, by that time interim order dated 29.12.2020 was not passed and as such, there is no question for non-compliance of the order dated 29.12.2020 of this Court. The said Panchanama clearly shows that before passing of the interim order, possession of the suit shop was delivered to respondent No.1 (Land Owner/Shop Owner) by the Tahsildar by

¶29

¶30

following due process of law. Moreover, the writ petition WP(227) No.524/2020 has been disposed of as infructuous vide order dated 15.7.2021 (Annexure R-1/1). Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal No.77-A/2021 against the order dated 24.12.2020 of the Rent Controlling Authority before the CG Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur which also came to be dismissed by order dated 12.4.2022. The petitioner then challenged the said order by filing WP(227) No.239/22 and the same was also dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.12.2024 (Annexure R-1/2). In view of above, it is crystal clear that there is no disobedience of the order of this Court by respondent No.1 and as such, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶31

In his additional submission, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as per the contemnors, the petitioner has been evicted in the morning of 29.12.2020 before passing of interim order. Thus, by their own admission, the so-called eviction has taken place at around 11.30 am and the alleged panchanama was also prepared in which it is mentioned that wife and son of the petitioner have not signed the panchanama. He submitted that the interim order was passed at around 12.30 pm, the same was promptly informed to the contemnors especially contemnor No.1 but they refused to acknowledge the same. Hence by 3.15 pm on 29.12.2020 copy of the said interim/stay order was sent through Whatsapp and after getting its print out, it was pasted on the shutter of the suit shop at around 3.30 pm which was later torn

¶32

¶33

apart by contemnor No.2. Thereafter the contemnors entered the shop and threw out the articles and some machinery with the help of crane. On 1.1.2021 again at about 6.30 am shutter was lifted and heavy machinery was removed with hydra machine and upon intervention, the petitioner and his children were assaulted. He submitted that the petitioner has filed the photographs of the incident as Annexure C/3 as also submitted video of the same in a pendrive in a closed envelope, which makes it clear that contemnor No.1 has filed a false affidavit and document claiming it to be a panchanama. Therefore, looking to the act of the respondents/contemnors, it is a fit case for holding them liable for contempt of court and awarding them exemplary punishment therefor.

¶34

Learned counsel for the respondents strongly opposed the additional submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶35

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶36

It is clear from the record available in this case and WP(227) No.524/2020 that the petitioner filed a writ petition against the respondents and this Court passed an interim order on 29.12.2020. The said petition came to be disposed of as infructuous vide order dated 15.7.2021.

¶37

As per the petitioner, the interim order was passed at around 12.30 pm and he informed about passing of this order to the

¶38

¶39

contemnors, especially contemnor No.1, but they refused to acknowledge the same, and the order was uploaded at 3.15 pm and copy of the said order was sent through Whatsapp and after getting its printout, it was pasted on the shutter of the suit shop at around 3.30 pm.

¶40

A bare perusal of the Panchanama (Annexure R-1/3) shows that it was prepared at 11.30 am on 29.12.2020 after eviction of the suit premises. As per the petitioner himself he informed about passing of the interim order to the contemnors after 12.30 pm. It is also clear from the interim order dated 29.12.2020 that only the petitioner was present before this Court and no one appeared on behalf of the respondents including the State. The petitioner has also filed some photographs to show that he pasted the interim order on the shutter of the suit shop whereas the respondents/contemnors contend that at that time the suit shop was already vacated and handed over to Jogender Singh.

¶41

It is well settled that for holding a party guilty of civil contempt, willful and deliberate disobedience of a court order, with prior knowledge thereof, must be clearly established. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to produce cogent and convincing evidence to show that the respondents had knowledge of the interim order before the alleged act of eviction or that the Panchanama relied upon by the respondents was fabricated or prepared subsequent to the interim order. Thus, the petitioner has failed to prove willful disobedience of the

¶42

¶43

order of this Court by the respondents/contemnors making them liable for contempt proceedings. No case for contempt is made out against the contemnors.

¶44

In the result, the instant petition being devoid of any substance is dismissed and consequently, the contemnors stand discharged. The contempt proceedings against them are hereby dropped.

¶45

Digitally signed by MOHD MOHDAKHTAR Sd/ AKHTAR KHAN Date: KHAN 2026.01.15 (Rajani Dubey) 16:00:13 +0530 Judge

¶46

Khan

Satvir Saini v. Jogendar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satvir Saini v. Jogendar Singh

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

Similar cases

Nilesh Jangde Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nilesh Jangde Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nilesh Jangde Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Munshiram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajesh @ Loha Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Krishna @ Dablu Vs State of Chhattisgarh