Dismissed

Smt. Saraswati v. Smt. Teeja and Ors.

Rajasthan HC21 Aug 2019CFA/165/1996

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the first appeal for violation of status quo orders and lack of cooperation regarding contempt costs.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; appellant to deposit Rs.1,00,000/- with District Legal Aid Authority, Bikaner within one month.

What the court decided

Smt. Saraswati Vs Smt. Teeja and Ors. — Rajasthan HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 165/1996

Smt. Saraswati

----Appellant

Versus

Smt. Teeja And Ors

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sajjan Singh with Mr. Prashant Tatia For Respondent(s) : Mr. NR Budania

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Order

¶10

21/08/2019

¶11

This Court had admitted this appeal and interim order was passed on 08.01.1997 staying the execution of the decree. The same was confirmed on 23.05.2008 whereafter the second stay application was moved by the plaintiff-respondent mentioning that the appellant and her relatives have stared the construction on the disputed property. Reply was filed to this stay application and the Court passed an order dated 05.10.2016 directing the status-quo as it exists today shall be maintained in respect of the suit property. Photographs were attached with the stay application to show that the construction was being done on the property.

¶12

An application was thereafter moved by the appellant before this Court under Section 151 of CPC stating that wall adjacent to the entrance gate of the property was demolished and required necessary repair and the same was almost completed except roof and he should be allowed to complete the finishing and furnishing work. A reply to the application was filed and it was informed that photographs was also filed alongwith application.

¶13

[CFA-165/1996]

¶14

(2 of 3)

¶15

This Court noticing that after the interim order having been passed by this Court on status-quo, it was noticed that the appellant has constructed three rooms and has also put up windows and gets along side the adjacent wall which is a new construction and the status-quo order passed by this Court was violated and taking into consideration that the order of the Court was not complied, suo-moto cognizance was taken to initiate the contempt proceedings. Application for allowing the finishing work, was dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority.

¶16

The District Legal Services Authority vide its letter dated 12.07.2019 has informed that the amount has directed to be deposited, was not deposited and the matter has come up before this Court today.

¶17

This Court notices that the appellant avoided service in suo-moto contempt proceeding and this Court vide order dated 24.04.2019 disposed of the contempt petition and discharged the notices making following observation :-

¶18

“In view of the above fact situation, wherein the respondent despite repeated attempts made in this regard has not been served and the party effected by the noncompliance, is apparently not interested in prosecuting the violation of the directions issued by this Court, to continue the present contempt proceeding in absence of current address of the respondent is only a waste of time of the Court.

¶19

Consequently, the notice issued is discharged. The contempt petition shall stand disposed of.”

¶20

Before this Court today, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that he has been instructed to get a clarification from this Court as to where the amount of

¶21

[CFA-165/1996]

¶22

(3 of 3)

¶23

Rs.10,000/- be deposited, as it was not known to the appellant to which District Legal Services Authority, the amount was to be deposited.

¶24

While the order was passed on 09.12.2016, till date the compliance has not been made. No application was moved for extension of time or for any clarification. A letter dated 12.07.2019 has been received from the District Legal Services Authority, Bikaner from where the appeal arises stating that the amount of Rs.10,000/- has not been deposited.

¶25

From above facts it is, thus, apparent that appellant who are duly represented by their counsel has shown complete disregard to the Court’s order passed on 09.12.2016 and has also avoided appearing in the contempt proceedings inspite of having full knowledge of the Court’s order passed from time to time as her counsel has been regularly presenting himself before the Court.

¶26

In the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that as the orders of the Court have not been complied with, the appellant has lost right to pursue the present appeal further. She has shown scant respect for the Court’s order. The first appeal preferred by the appellant-defendant No.5 is dismissed with cost of Rs.1,00,000/- to be deposited by her with the District Legal Aid Authority, Bikaner. The compliance shall be made within one month, failing which, the District Legal Services Authority shall be free to initiate PDR proceeding, as arrears of land revenue, against the appellant.

¶27

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶28

1-Sudheer/-

Smt. Saraswati v. Smt. Teeja and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Smt. Saraswati v. Smt. Teeja and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

L.I.C. of India and Anr. Vs Ram Pyari

Smt Chhagani Devi Vs Banshi Lal

Sampat Raj and Ors. Vs Soni Devi

Badri Prasad and Ors. Vs Amba Lal and Ors.

Lal Chand Vs Rakesh Kumar and Ors.

Shyam Singh Parihar Vs Manju Bala