Mohammad Khaleel vs Jaitoon Beba
2024 Latest Caselaw 3625 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Mohammad Khaleel vs Jaitoon Beba on 7 February, 2024

Author: Chief Justice

Bench: Ravi Malimath, Vishal Mishra

                                                     1
                          IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                             AT JABALPUR
                                                  BEFORE
                                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
                                               CHIEF JUSTICE
                                                     &
                                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
                                          ON THE 7 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
                                         CONTEMPT APPEAL No. 1 of 2023

                         BETWEEN:-
                         MOHAMMAD KHALEEL S/O MOHAMMAD SIDDQUI,
                         AGED     ABOUT    52    YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                         AGRICULTURIST GRAM CHURHAT DISTRICT SIDHI
                         (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                           .....APPELLANT
                         (BY SHRI GULSHER AHMAD - ADVOCATE)

                         AND
                         1.    JAITOON BEBA S/O ABDUL RAB, AGED ABOUT 70
                               YE A R S , OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE GRAM
                               CHURHAT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         2.    ABDUL KALAN S/O ABDUL RAB, AGED ABOUT 50
                               YEAR S , OCCUPATION: GOVT. EMPLOYEE R/O
                               GRAM CHURHAT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         3.    ABDUL SALAM S/O ABDUL RAB, AGED ABOUT 45
                               YEAR S , OCCUPATION: GOVT. EMPLOYEE R/O
                               GRAM CHURHAT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         4.    ABDUL HAFEEZ S/O ABDUL RAB, AGED ABOUT 38
                               YE A R S , OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O GRAM
                               CHURHAT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         5.    SAIRA BANO W/O LATE ABDUL MUMTAZ, AGED
                               ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE R/O
                               GRAM CHURHAT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         6.    HAROON RASHID S/O LATE ABDUL MUMTAZ,
                               AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS
                               R/O GRAM CHURHAT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREMSHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 2/8/2024
1:22:27 PM
                                                             2
                         7.    ABDUL GAFFAR S/O LATE MOHD. ZAHOOR, AGED
                               ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O
                               GRAM CHURHAT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         8.    MOHD AFZAL S/O LATE ABDUL KADIR, AGED
                               ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O
                               GRAM CHURHAT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         9.    ABDUL RAHMAN S/O MOND MUNEER, AGED
                               ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O
                               GRAM CHURHAT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....RESPONDENTS


                               This appeal coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
                         Ravi Malimath, Chief Justice passed the following:
                                                             ORDER

I.A. No.1 of 2017 was filed by the defendants in RCSA No.45-A of 2016 seeking initiation of proceedings for contempt against the plaintiff for filing a suit by suppressing the correct facts in regard to the finalization of the proceedings before the revenue court and also due to filing of a false affidavit by placing reliance on various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

2. The learned Single Judge while placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mainapore Peoples' Co-op. Bank Ltd. and others vs. Chunilal Nanda and others, reported in AIR 2006 SC 2190 dismissed the petition on the ground that an appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act would be maintainable only against an order or decision of the High Court passed in exercise of its original jurisdiction to punish for contempt. Therefore, in the instant case, the proceedings would not be maintainable. Therefore, the question for filing an appeal would not arise for consideration.

3. On considering the reasons assigned, we do not find any ground to

interfere in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The reasons assigned are appropriate. We find no good ground to interfere. Hence, this appeal is dismissed.

4. Pending interlocutory applications are disposed off.

                               (RAVI MALIMATH)                                     (VISHAL MISHRA)
                                 CHIEF JUSTICE                                          JUDGE
                         psm