Balraj vs Abdul Samad Nagar Ayukt
2024 Latest Caselaw 19335 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Balraj vs Abdul Samad Nagar Ayukt on 27 May, 2024

Author: Prakash Padia

Bench: Prakash Padia

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:96123
 
Court No. - 35
 

 
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 428 of 2014
 

 
Applicant :- Balraj
 
Opposite Party :- Abdul Samad Nagar Ayukt
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Kumar,Amod Tripathi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- S.C.,Pankaj Srivastava
 

 
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
 

Order on Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.5 of 2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. Cause shown for the delay in filing the restoration application is sufficient. The delay is condoned.

3. The application is allowed.

Order on Civil Misc. Restoration Application No.6 of 2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. Cause shown for the absence of the counsel, when the matter was taken up for hearing, is sufficient. The application is allowed.

3. The order dated 11.7.2022 is recalled. The contempt application is restored to its original number.

Order on Civil Misc. Impleadment Application No.9 of 2024

1. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant does not want to press the present impleadment application and the same may be dismissed as not pressed.

2. In view of the above, the present impleadment application is dismissed as not pressed.

Order on Contempt Application

1. The present contempt application has been filed for non-compliance of interim order dated 21.06.2012 passed in Writ-C No.30571 of 2012.

2. The aforesaid writ petition was finally disposed of vide order dated 20.02.2019. Copy of the same is annexed as Annexure No.(2) to the supplementary affidavit dated 21.05.2024.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that vide order dated 20.02.2019, the appellate court was directed to decide the Appeal No.96 of 2011(Balraj and another vs. Sukhbir Singh and others) expeditiously and preferably within a period of eight months but till date no final decision has been taken to the aforesaid appeal, hence the present contempt application has been preferred by the applicant.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. From perusal of the record it transpires that the present contempt petition has been filed against the interlocutory order dated 21.06.2012. The aforesaid writ petition has already been decided on 20.02.2019. It is settled law that all the interlocutory orders were merged with the final judgment.

6. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that once the order against which the contempt application has been filed, has already been merged with the final judgment, as on date, no contempt is made out.

7. In case the petitioner is aggrieved for non-compliance of the order dated 20.02.2019 passed in the aforesaid writ petition, he is free to approach the appropriate forum.

8. In view of the aforesaid, the present contempt application is dismissed as having become infructuous.

Order Date :-27.5.2024

S.K.