The court dismissed a civil contempt petition alleging non-compliance with a status quo interim order. It held that no contempt was committed as the respondent's actions were based on a registered agreement with a third party not involved in the litigation.
N/A
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.
S.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.1244/2013
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR
O R D E R
IN S.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.1244/2013 IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1720/2012 [Chandra Prakash @ Chandya Vs. Hem Chand & Anr.]
Date of Order : 18.09.2014
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA
Mr. Chandra Prakash, petitioner in person. Mr. Dharmendra Pareek, for the respondents-contemnors. BY THE COURT
Non-compliance of the interim order dated 27.02.2012, passed by this Court has been alleged in this contempt petition. Thereunder while issuing notices on writ petition No.1720/2012 to the respondents, this Court had directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the property in question till the next date. That stay order appears to be extended from time to time and is still operative.
Mr. Chandra Prakash, petitioner in person, submits that in spite of the order of status quo passed by this Court on 27.02.2012 and knowledge thereof, the respondents are indulging in alienating the property in question even though notice of contempt was served on the respondents through the petitioner's counsel on 13.06.2013.
Mr. Dharmendra Pareek, appearing for the respondents submits that no order of the Court passed on 27.02.2012 or otherwise has been flouted. It has been submitted that a development agreement dated 24.07.2009 was executed between the respondentHem Chand Saini and one Prahlad Rai in respect of the suit property
S.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.1244/2013
(2)
and duly registered with the Sub Registrar-II, Jaipur. In pursuance of the aforesaid development agreement, constructions of the ground floor and two floors was made in the year 2010. As per the condition No.9 of the registered development agreement referred to above, subsequent to the construction of ground floor and two floors, half of the roof came into the ownership of the respondent-Hem Chand Soni and the remainder in the ownership of developer-Prahald Rai. It has been submitted that no construction, nor any alienation has been made by the respondent-Hem Chand Soni. In these circumstances the order dated 27.02.2012 passed by this Court has not been controverted in any manner whatsoever. He submits that the construction was indeed made by Prahald Rai over half of the roof in his ownership but he is not a party in the writ petition or even the contempt petition. As per clause 9 of the development agreement, the respondent-Hem Chand Soni cannot be held responsible therefor. In fact the respondent-Hem Chand Soni had himself made a complaint before the Jaipur Municipal Corporation with regard to Prahald Rai having made constructions in spite of the interim order dated 27.02.2012, passed by this Court.
Admittedly Prahald Rai is neither a party in the writ petition, nor in this contempt petition. In the circumstances obtaining, in my considered opinion, no case of contempt of the order dated 27.02.2012, passed by this Court attributable to the respondents has been made out. There is no force in the contempt petition.
Dismissed. Notices discharged.
(ALOK SHARMA), J
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.- Manoj Solanki, P.A.
MS/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondents committed contempt by alienating the property in violation of the status quo interim order.
Whether the respondent is liable for constructions made by a third party in pursuance of a registered development agreement.
Chandra Prakash
Hem Chand
Allok Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
