The Collegium of the High Court of Rajasthan dismissed this contempt petition, observing that the remedy under Order 39 Rule 2 CPC exists and granted liberty to the petitioners to pursue it instead of setting aside the impugned order.
Liberty granted to petitioners to take the remedy under Order 39 Rule 2 CPC.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 109 / 2012
----Petitioners
Versus
Kamla Rani Vashistha W/o Shri Pradeep Kumar Ji Vashistha, B/c Brahmin R/o Shah Bhawan, Al Mashoor Birdi Chand Nazim Ki Haweli, House No. 1321, Harsukh Kasliwal Ka Rasta, Chokdi Modikhana, Jaipur At Present R/o House No. 284, Gyatri Nagar A Maharani Farm Durga Pura Jaipur
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Aditya Mathur
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.BHANDARI
Order
13/11/2017
This contempt petition is arising out of the order passed in
the first appeal.
The service of notice has not been effected for last five years. In in any case, the remedy under Order 39 Rule 2 CPC exists with the petitioners thus while disposing of this contempt petition, a liberty is given to take the remedy as per Order 39 Rule 2 CPC
(MN BHANDARI) J.
Preeti, PA/7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order in the service of notice under Order 39 Rule 1(2) CPC should be set aside in instances of non-service for five years.
What alternative remedy is available to the petitioners when service of notice remains un effected by the court for five years in a contempt petition.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Arun Shah and others
Kamla Rani Vashistha
M.N. Bhandari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
