Rajasthan High Court
Jyana W/O Shri Ramnarayan vs Shiv Prasad @ Sheojiram Adopted ... on 12 January, 2022
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 607/2020
1. Jyana W/o Shri Ramnarayan, Aged About 50 Years, R/o
Kotkhawda, Tehsil Chaksu, Distt. Jaipur, Raj.
2. Manbhar W/o Shri Sheojiram, Aged About 45 Years, R/o
Kotkhawda, Tehsil Chaksu, Distt. Jaipur, Raj.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Shiv Prasad @ Sheojiram Adopted S/o Late Shri Bhoma,
R/o Chhandel Khurd, Tehsil Chaksu, Distt. Jaipur, Raj.
2. Babulal Bishnoi, Head Constable Blat No. 1914, Posted At
Ps Chaksu, Distt. Jaipur, Raj.
3. Brij Mohan Kaviya, Sho Posted At Ps Chaksu, Distt. Jaipur,
Raj.
4. Dakha W/o Shri Ram Narayan, R/o Jhapda, Tehsil Lalsot,
Distt. Dausa, Raj.
5. Rampayari W/o Nanagram, R/o Jogabadi, Tehsil Chaksu,
Distt. Jaipur, Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shanker Lal Sharma through VC
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ram Manohar Sharma through VC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
12/01/2022
This contempt petition has been filed by appellants alleging
that private respondent No.4 and 5 have interfered in their
possession and cultivation for the land in question which is a clear
disobedience of interim stay order dated 11.09.2019, passed in SB
Civil First Appeal No.854/2019 (Jyana & Anr. Vs. Shiv Prasad &
Ors). A perusal of interim order dated 11.09.2019 reveals that
following interim order has been passed:-
(2 of 3) [CCP-607/2020]
"In the meanwhile, operation of order impugned
dated 08.08.2019 shall remain stayed till further orders."
It has been argued that a Civil suit was filed by private
respondents which was decreed in their favour vide judgment and
decree dated 08.08.2019 and same was assailed by petitioner by
way of filing the SB Civil First Appeal No.854/2019. It has been
argued that in first appeal, operation of judgment dated
08.08.2019 has been stayed, therefore, respondents cannot
interfere in the possession and cultivation of petitioners.
Learned counsel for petitioners submits that he has
submitted the representations dated 08.07.2020 & 17.07.2020
and also file a complaint under Section 107, 116(3) Cr.P.C. but no
action was taken thereupon by authorities, therefore, such
inaction of respondents-authorities be treated as contemptuous
and disobedience of interim stay order.
Learned counsel for private respondents has prayed and
submitted that there is no interim stay order passed in favour of
petitioner for protecting their possession. Otherwise also he
further submits that the dispute about land in question, including
the issue of possession the land in question between parties,
would be adjudicated in the first appeal and there is no non-
compliance of interim stay order dated 11.09.2019 on their part.
Heard counsel for both parties and perused the material
available on record.
This Court is of opinion that after perusing the material
available on record it cannot be assumed that there is any non-
compliance of interim stay order dated 11.09.2019 on the part of
respondents just for the reason that they have not considered and
have not extended heed on the representation and complaint
(3 of 3) [CCP-607/2020]
made by petitioner. Nevertheless, rights and interest of parties
including the issue of possession is subject matter in the pending
appeal. In case, petitioners are aggrieved by action of private
respondent, they are free to move appropriate application in the
appeal in this regard for redressal of their grievances.
With aforesaid observations, contempt petition is dismissed.
Notices of contempt are discharged.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
NITIN/78
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
