Sunita vs Dipul Shri Mali ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4894 Raj

[2023/RJJD/016050]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civ. Contempt Pet. No. 21/2021

1. Sunita W/o Jitendra Kumar Pariwar, Aged About 54 Years, B/c Bhoi, R/o 26, Sutharwada, Udaipur.

2. Laluram S/o Modilal Bhoi, Aged About 34 Years, Thokar Circle, Tamba Gali, Udaipur.

----Petitioners Versus Dipul Shri Mali S/o Lt. Daulat Ram, Aged About 47 Years, Malion Ki Kadiya, Tehsil Badganv. At Present 154, Raoji Ka Hata, Salumber Ki Haveli, Near Mitha Ram Temple, Udaipur.

                                                                 ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. J.Gehlot
For Respondent(s)         :     -



                     JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                     Order

18/05/2023

1. By way of present contempt petition, petitioners have prayed

that the respondent be punished for contempt for flouting interim

order dated 06.03.2019, passed by this Court in S.B. Civil First

Appeal No.98/2019; Dipul Shri Mali Vs. Sunita & Anr.

2. Mr. Gehlot, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that in

spite of the interim order passed by this Court in the contemnor's

own appeal requiring the parties to maintain status quo regarding

land in question, the contemnor have excavated sand from the

land in question and thus, violated the interim order.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and

considering the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2018 passed by

learned Additional District Judge No.5, Udaipur in the case

[2023/RJJD/016050] (2 of 2) [CCP-21/2021]

No.39/2015, it is clear that the respondent was in possession of

the disputed land.

4. In the opinion of this Court, order requiring parties to

maintain status quo has to be construed in its correct perspective,

i.e. the parties shall neither transfer the property nor shall they

hand over the possession.

5. Merely because some sand has been excavated from the

disputed land, it cannot be said that the order of maintaining

status quo has been violated so as to warrant proceeding for

contempt against the respondent.

6. This Court does not find any reason to initiate contempt

proceedings against the respondent. The contempt petition is,

therefore, dismissed.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 169-akansha/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)