Allahabad High Court
Kamlesh And Another vs Nand Lal And 4 Others on 22 August, 2023
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:168998
Court No. - 9
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1554 of 2022
Applicant :- Kamlesh And Another
Opposite Party :- Nand Lal And 4 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Ramendra Asthana,Atul Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Pramod Kumar Sinha
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri Atul Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Tejasvi Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 4 and 5.
A civil suit was filed by opposite party nos. 1 to 3 against the applicants. The suit was dismissed against which an appeal was filed which was allowed and in the appeal it was found that possession of opposite party nos. 1 to 3 was on the land in dispute. Aggrieved by the order passed by first appellate court, a Second Appeal No. 111 of 2021 was preferred by the applicant wherein on 22.06.2021 following order was passed:-
"As per Resolution dated 07.04.2021 of the Committee of this Court for the purpose of taking preventive and remedial measures and for combating the impending threat of Covid-19, this case is being heard by way of virtual mode.
Heard Shri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Chandra Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondents through video conferencing.
This second appeal has been preferred against the judgement of First appellate court whereby suit of the plaintiff has been decreed for the relief of permanent injunction.The defendant has approached this court.
The appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-
A. Whether the learned lower appellate court has erred in law is not appreciating legal position that provisions of Section 25 of the Contract Act, are attracted in the case in hand and the judgement and decree passed by it(the learned lower appellate court) which provides that if any deed is executed without passing of sale consideration then the deed/document will not be a sale deed?
B.Whether under facts and circumstances of the case in hand the plaintiff could get any relief in a simple suit for permanent injunction filed without any relief for declaration of title?
C.Whether scope of provisions contained in Section 32 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is wide enough to take within its sweep when matters other than case of death are there in picture?
D. Whether the learned lower appellate court has erred in law in giving a judgement in the teeth of law laid down by this Court in case of Rama Nanad and others Vs. D.D.C. and others,1993 R.D.90?
E.Whether the impugned decree and judgement of the learned lower appellate court stand vitiated and are liable to be set-aside by this Court in exercise of its second appellate jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that it has given a judgement of reversal without giving reasons for reversing various reasoning and findings given by the learned court of the first instance while dismissing with costs suit giving rise to this Second Appeal?
Call for lower court record.
List in due course for hearing.
Order on the Stay Application
Until further orders of this court parties are directed to main status quo with regard to character, nature and possession over the property in dispute."
The appellate Court had directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to character, nature and possession over the property in dispute.
From perusal of the order passed by appellate Court, it is clear that Court had directed the parties to maintain status quo.
Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the opposite party nos. 1 to 3 in connivance with opposite party nos. 4 and 5 have taken possession of the entire land over which the applicant was in possession.
This Court finds that as the first appellate court had already held that possession of opposite party nos. 1 to 3 exist on the land in dispute and said part of the judgment of the first appellate court was not stayed by second appellate Court and only direction was issued by second appellate Court to maintain status quo over the land in dispute, no case for contempt is made out as alleged by the applicant.
The contempt application is misconceived and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.8.2023
V.S.Singh
