Rajasthan High Court
Nandlal Agarwal S/O Late Shri ... vs Geeta W/O Pannalal ... on 29 August, 2023
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
[2023:RJ-JP:19875]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 2589/2018
In
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1450/2018
Nandlal Agarwal S/o Late Shri Chiranjilal Agarwal, Aged About 70
Years, R/o Tamkaur Tehsil Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu Through
Power Of Attorney Narandra Singh Shekhawat S/o Banne Singh
Shekhawat, Aged 64 Years, R/o Tamkor, Tehsil Malsisar, District
Jhunjhunu
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Geeta W/o Pannalal,
2. Jagdish S/o Pannalal,
3. Usha W/o Jagdish,
4. Ranveer S/o Pannalal,
5. Anandi W/o Ranveer,
6. Bhanwari D/o Pannalal,
7. Manish Husband Of Bhanwari Devi,
8. Jitendra S/o Bhanwari,
9. Anand S/o Bhanwari,
10. Dinesh D/o Bhanwari And Manish,
11. Ratanlal S/o Ramjia,
12. Sohanlal S/o Ramjia,
13. Pradeep S/o Sohanlal,
All are R/o Tamkor, Tehsil Malsisar District Jhunjhunu
14. Shri Rampal Meena, Tehsildar, Malsisar District Jhunjhunu
15. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar Malsisar District
Jhunjhunu
----Respondents/Contemnors
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pawan Pareek with
Mr. Raghvendra Singh Khichi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Akshay Sharma, AGC
Mr. Mahendra Kumar Jain
[2023:RJ-JP:19875] (2 of 3) [CCP-2589/2018]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Judgment / Order
29/08/2023
This contempt petition has been filed alleging willful
disobedience of the interim order dated 30.01.2018 passed by this
Court whereby, the parties were directed to maintain status quo of
the suit premises.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that despite
intimation of the interim order dated 30.01.2018 to the
respondents no.1 to 13 vide legal notice dated 26.11.2018, they
have raised construction on the suit premises as is evident from
the report of the Revenue Officials dated 27.12.2018 and
02.1.2019 submitted along with the reply filed by the respondents
no.14 & 15 to the contempt petition. He, therefore, prays that the
respondents may be directed to purge the contempt and they may
also be punished suitably.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents no.1,5, 8, 12
& 13 would submit that they never received intimation of the
interim order dated 30.01.2018 before the alleged construction
was raised. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the contempt
petition.
Learned State Counsel for the respondents no.14 & 15
submits that as soon as they received the intimation of the interim
order of this Court, they restrained the respondents no.1 to 13
from raising further construction. He, therefore, prays for
dismissal of the contempt petition.
Heard. Considered.
[2023:RJ-JP:19875] (3 of 3) [CCP-2589/2018]
Vide ex-parte interim order dated 30.01.2018, contempt
whereof is alleged, the parties were directed to maintain status
quo relating to the suit premises.
Although, from the material on record, it is apparent that the
respondents no.1 to 13 have raised construction on the suit
premises despite interim order of this Court dated 30.01.2018;
but, the petitioner has miserably failed to satisfy this Court that
the respondents no.1 to 13 were ever communicated of the ex-
parte interim order before they ventured on raising construction.
Admittedly, a copy of the interim order dated 30.01.2018 was not
sent to the respondents along with the notice dated 28.11.2018
and in view thereof, it cannot be held that the respondents were
communicated of the interim order dated 30.01.2018. Therefore,
in absence of communication of the interim order, the respondents
cannot be held guilty of its willful disobedience.
Resultantly, this contempt petition is dismissed.
Notices are discharged.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Sudha/48
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
