High Court dismissed a contempt petition as the pettier failed to prove the respondent State knew of the interim order before dispossessing the appellant, as no service or notice was established before the possession report date.
Contempt petition dismissed; notices discharged.
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. 75/2020
IN
S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 2455/2012
IN
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 498/2012
Abdul Sayeed Son Of Late Shri Abdul Wahid, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of House No. 792, Sr. No. 1143, Munsiramdas Ji Ke Haveli Ke Paas, Chowkari Gangapole, Jaipur (Raj.) Power Of Attorney Holder Of Abdul Muttalib Son Of Late Qaisar Hassan Khan, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of 8, Nasheman E Tehzib, Nagla Barola, Aligarh U.p. At Present Resident Of Nawab Kallan Khan Bag, M.i. Road Jaipur (Raj.)
----Lrs No. 3/1 Of Appellant No. 3/Applicants/Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents/Non-Applicants
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.L. Saini, AAG Mr. Asgar Khan
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
25/04/2023
(2 of 3) [CCP-75/2020]
Mr. C.L. Saini, learned Additional Advocate General & Mr. Asgar Khan, learned counsel, appear for all the respondents.
Service is complete.
This contempt petition has been filed alleging willful disobedience of the interim order dated 28.08.2012 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Stay Application No.2455/2012 in S.B. Civil First Appeal No.498/2012 whereby, status quo in regard to the property, qua the appellants, was directed to be maintained.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that despite intimation of the interim order dated 28.08.2012, the respondent no.3 in its willful disobedience, dispossessed him on 26.04.2019. He submits that a registered notice dated 16.11.2019 was also served upon him to maintain the status quo in terms of the order dated 28.08.2012. He, therefore, prays that the respondents may be directed to purge the contempt and they may further suitably be punished.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 would submit that he was never intimated of the interim order dated 28.08.2012 by the petitioners which was passed in his absence on or before 26.04.2019 as is apparent from the possession report dated even. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the contempt petition.
Heard. Considered.
The order dated 28.08.2012, contempt whereof is alleged, was passed in absence of the learned counsel for the respondent no.3. There is neither any whisper of averment in the memo of contempt petition that the respondent no.3 was apprised of the
[CCP-75/2020]
(3 of 3)
interim order dated 28.08.2012 on or before taking possession on 26.04.2019 nor, any document has been appended therewith to show that despite intimation of the interim order, the respondent no.3 took possession of the subject property; rather, as per the possession report, no interim order was shown by the petitioners even at the time of taking possession. The registered notice is dated 16.11.2019, i.e., after about 5 months from the date of taking possession of the subject property. It is a well settled legal principle that contempt proceedings are quasi criminal in nature and before a person can be held guilty of contempt, it has to be established that despite knowledge of the direction, he violated the same. In the present case, the petitioners have miserably failed to establish that despite intimation of the interim order of this Court dated 28.08.2012, the respondent no.3 has willfully disobeyed it.
In view thereof, this contempt petition is dismissed. Notices are discharged.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
PRAGATI/40
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the contempt petitioner established that the respondent noticed and willfully disobeyed an interim order for maintaining status quo.
Abdul Sayeed
Khanu Khanam Budhwali
State Of Rajasthan
Mahendar Kumar Goyal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
