Vijay Kumar Bidhuri vs Majid Mohd And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 88 j&K

                                                                     Sr. No.37

         HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                         AT JAMMU

                                                LPA no. 12/2023


Vijay Kumar Bidhuri,                                .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Commissoner/Secy Revenue Deptt and
others

                       Through: Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG

                 Vs

Majid Mohd and another                                        ..... Respondent(s)

                       Through: Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, Advocate

Coram:    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE
                            ORDER

03.02.2023

Impugned in this appeal filed under Clause 12 of Letters Patent, is an

order of learned Single Judge dated 21.12.2022 passed in CCP(S) no. 506/2019

whereby the consideration accorded by the appellant to the case of respondents

in compliance with the judgment dated 08.04.2019 passed in WP (C) no.

132/2021 has been rejected and the respondents have been given four weeks'

time to report compliance in tune with judgment of writ Court.

The Single Bench has also made it clear that if compliance in tune

with the judgment dated 08.04.2019 is not filed by or before the next date, the

Commissioner/Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department, Jammu as

also the Financial Commissioner, J&K, shall appear in person along with

record of the case.

Impugned order of the Single Judge is assailed by the appellant

primarily on the ground that in the face of the consideration order passed by

the appellants in strict compliance with the judgment dated 08.04.2019, the

Single Bench could not have directed further compliance and in default, the 2 WP (C) no. 185/2023

personal presence of the Commissioner/Secretary to the Government, Revenue

Department and Financial Commissioner, J&K.

It is submitted that appellants have complied with the judgment and

have passed a detailed consideration order and the remedy of the respondents,

if they were aggrieved of the consideration order, was to file a fresh petition

and not to pursue the contempt petition. However, Mr. Abhinav Sharma,

learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that the order

impugned, by no stretch of reasoning, is tantamount to 'judgment' in terms of

Clause 12 of the Letters Patent and, therefore, intra court appeal is not

maintainable.

He further submits that the since the order does not amount to

imposing punishment for committing contempt of this Court and, therefore, is

not appealable under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material

on record, we of the view that the order impugned is neither appealable under

Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act nor under Clause 12 of the Letters

Patent. Indisputably, the impugned order cannot be construed to be an order

passed in exercise of jurisdiction to punish the appellants for committing the

contempt of Court.

From reading of the impugned order, it clearly transpires that the

Court, on the request of learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has

granted four weeks' further time to report compliance in tune with the

judgment dated 08.04.2019 passed in WP (C) no. 132/2021, which has since

attained finality. The order impugned passed by the Single Bench does not

contain any fresh direction touching upon the judgment dated 08.04.2019 nor 3 WP (C) no. 185/2023

has the Single Bench added anything to the judgment dated 08.04.2019, which

has since attained finality. The impugned order, we feel, has been passed by

the Single Bench to ensure that the final judgment passed by the Single Bench

is complied with in letter and spirit. The appellants still have an opportunity to

file a fresh compliance and satisfy the Single Bench that the judgment dated

08.04.2019 has been complied by them in letter and spirit.

Viewed from any angle, we do not find that the appeal against the

impugned order is maintainable either under Section 19 of the Contempt of

Courts Act or Clause 12 of the Letters Patent Appeal. The reliance placed by

Mrs. Monika Kohli, learned Sr. AAG on the judgment passed by Supreme

Court titled as "Midnapore Peoples' Co-Op. Bank vs. Chunilal Nanda &

Ors" (2006) 5 SCC 399 is misplaced as the judgment is not applicable in the

facts and circumstances of the present case. We have already stated and

reiterate that the impugned order, if read in entirely, does not suggest that the

Single Bench has passed any direction over and above the directions contained

in the judgment dated 08.04.2019 nor has the Single Bench touched upon the

merits of the dispute.

In view of the above, this appeal which is purportedly filed under

Clause 12 of the Letters Patent is found not maintainable and the same is,

accordingly, dismissed.

(Sanjeev Kumar) (Puneet Gupta) Judge Judge Jammu 03.02.2023 Sahil Toga