Chattisgarh High Court
Nathuram Patel vs Smt. Sumitra Bai on 28 April, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:18977
NAFR
RAHUL
JHA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally signed
by RAHUL JHA
Date: 2025.04.29
10:22:00 +0530
CONT No. 581 of 2025
1 - Nathuram Patel S/o Goverdhan Patel Aged About 74 Years R/o Village -
Bhilai, Tahsil - Mungeli (Now Pathariya), District - Bilaspur (Now Mungeli),
Chhattisgarh
Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Smt. Sumitra Bai W/o Ganguram Aged About 50 Years R/o Vilage - Barala,
Tah. - Mungeli, Distt. - Bilaspur (M.P.), (Now C.G.), (Since Died) Through
Legal Heirs (Contemnors)
1.1 - (A) Genduram S/o Ganguram Aged About 52 Years R/o Village - Barala,
Tahsil - Mungeli (Now Pathariya), District - Mungeli (C.G.)
1.2 - (B) Feduram S/o Ganguram Aged About 49 Years R/o Village - Barala,
Tahsil - Mungeli (Now Pathariya), District - Mungeli (C.G.)
1.3 - (C) Kamal Prasad S/o Ganguram Aged About 46 Years R/o Village -
Barala, Tahsil - Mungeli (Now Pathariya), District - Mungeli (C.G.)
1.4 - (D) Harnarayan S/o Ganguram Aged About 43 Years R/o Village - Barala,
Tahsil - Mungeli (Now Pathariya), District - Mungeli (C.G.)
1.5 - (E) Ramnarayan S/o Ganguram Aged About 38 Years R/o Village -
Barala, Tahsil - Mungeli (Now Pathariya), District - Mungeli (C.G.)
1.6 - (F) Laxmin D/o Ganguram Aged About 40 Years R/o Village - Barala,
Tahsil - Mungeli (Now Pathariya), District - Mungeli (C.G.)
2 - Smt. Sushila Bai W/o Nirmal Prasad Aged About 41 Years R/o Village -
Kasmonda, Tehsil - Janjgir, District - Bilaspur (C.G.)
3 - Chandrakant Chandravanshi Naib Tahsildar, Pathariya, District - Mungeli
(C.G.)
Respondent(s)
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. V.K. Sharma and Mr. Chandra Kumar, Advocate
For Respondent : None
(HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU)
Order on Board
28/04/2025
1. Heard on admission.
2. This Contempt Petition has been preferred by the petitioner with the
averments that despite of the judgment/decree passed by this Court on
20/08/2024 in Second Appeal No. 514/2000, the respondents have
intentionally and willfully violated the said judgment/decree.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the Second
Appeal No. 514/2000, this Court vide judgment/decree dated 20/08/2024
had declared the petitioner herein as joint owner of the suit land
mentioned in Schedule 'B' & 'C' in the appeal and he was declared to
get 1/3rd share of the suit land, however, the respondents after hatching
the conspiracy and in order to grab the precious part of land at prime
location, got executed ex-parte partition and obtained 3.2670 hectare of
land by order dated 25/11/2024 in Revenue case No.
202324630230700004. The respondents have intentionally and willfully
violated the judgment and decree dated 20/08/2024 passed in Second
Appeal No. 514/2000 and thereby committed contempt of the order
passed by this Court.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the judgment
and decree dated 20/08/2024 passed in Second Appeal No. 514/2000.
5. From perusal of judgment and decree dated 20/08/2024, it is quite vivid
that the appellant/petitioner herein was declared to be the joint owner of
the suit land. The judgment only says that the petitioner is entitled to get
1/3rd share of the suit land.
6. It is submission of the petitioner himself that the respondents, in order to
grab the precious part of land at prime location, executed ex-parte
partition, however, no where in the contempt petition, he has pleaded
that he has not received 1/3rd share of the suit land in compliance of the
judgment and decree dated 20/08/2024 passed in Second Appeal No.
514/2000. Had it been the case that the petitioner has been denied the
share of the suit land, things would have definitely been different, but in
the case in hand, the petitioner has no where pleaded in the petition that
he has been denied to have the share in compliance of the judgment and
decree dated 20/08/2024. If the petitioner is dissatisfied with the alleged
ex-parte partition order, he may take appropriate recourse of law. Hence,
in the considered opinion, this Court does not find any ground to
entertain this Contempt Petition.
7. Accordingly, the Contempt Petition has no substance and the same
deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(BIBHU DATTA GURU)
JUDGE
Rahul
