Maya Devi vs Yunis Khan & Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 1297 HP

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                                                 COPC No.242 of 2020




                                                                                  .
                                               Decided on 25.02.2021
    _____________________________________________________________________





    Maya Devi                                           ..Petitioner
                                   Versus





    Yunis Khan & another                               ...Respondent
     __________________________________________________________________
    Coram:

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge





    Whether approved for reporting? 1

    For the petitioner       r           :      Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate.

    For the respondents :         Mr. Ajay Chauhan, Advocate.
    __________________________________________________________________

    Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

By way of present contempt petition, prayer has been

made on behalf of the petitioner for initiation of contempt

proceedings against the respondents for having willfully and

intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in order/judgment

dated 22.6.2020, passed by this Court in CWP No. 1765/2020,

whereby this Court directed the respondents to consider the case of

the applicant within three months from the date of production of

certified copy of the order. Since no action, whatsoever, came to be

taken at the behest of the respondents pursuant to aforesaid

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

direction issued by this Court, petitioner has approached this Court

in the instant proceedings.

.

2. Mr. Ajay Chauhan, learned counsel representing the

respondents, submits that though he has every reason to presume

that by now, judgment alleged to have been violated must have

been complied with in its totality, but if not, same would be

definitely complied with within a period of four weeks from today.

3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by the

learned counsel for the respondents, this Court sees no reason to

keep the present petition alive and accordingly, same is closed.

However, respondents-contemnors are directed to do the needful in

terms of judgment alleged to have been violated within a period of

four weeks, failing which, respondents would aggravate the

contempt and petitioner would be at liberty to get the present

petition revived so that appropriate action in accordance with law is

taken against the respondents-contemnors.

(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 25th February, 2021 (reena)