Pradeep Kumar Agarwal S/O Late ... vs Hitesh Kumar S/O Late Shri ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5881 Raj/2

[2023:RJ-JP:28524]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 698/2023

                                           In

                     S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4033/2003

1.       Pradeep Kumar Agarwal S/o Late Shri Amarnath, Aged
         About 58 Years, Resident Of Agarwal Bhawan, Tapukada,
         Tijara, Alwar.
2.       Krishna Gopal Agrawal S/o Late Shri Amarnath, Aged
         About 55 Years, Resident Of D-30 Bhagat Singh Colony,
         Bhiwadi, Tijara, Alwar.
                                                                       ----Petitioners
                                        Versus
1.       Hitesh Kumar S/o Late Shri Shivcharan, Age Adult,
2.       Ripu Sadan S/o Late Shri Shivcharan, Age Adult,
3.       Hitendra Kumar S/o Late Shri Shivcharan, Age Adult,
4.       Dhruparkash S/o Late Shivcharan, Age Adult,
         All Residents Of Village Tapukada, Tehsil Tijara, Distt.
         Alwar.
                                                ----Non-Petitioner/Contemnors


For Petitioner(s)             :     Mr. N.K. Maloo, Sr. Adv. with
                                    Mr. Pratyush Sharma
For Respondent(s)             :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

Judgment / Order

11/10/2023

This contempt petition has been filed alleging wilful

disobedience of the interim order dated 19.07.2003 passed by this

Court whereby, the status quo was directed to be maintained by

all the parties so far as the land in dispute is concerned.

Inviting attention of this Court towards an agreement to sell

dated 02.06.2021 executed by the respondents no.1 to 4 in favour

[2023:RJ-JP:28524] (2 of 2) [CCP-698/2023]

of M/s R.K. Sons Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., learned Senior Counsel for

the petitioners would submit that they have violated the order of

status quo. He, therefore, prays that the respondents may be

directed to purge the contempt and they may also be punished

suitably.

Heard. Considered.

Under the agreement to sell dated 02.06.2021, possession of

the subject property has not been exchanged. It is a well settled

legal principle that an agreement to sell neither creates any right

in favour of the purchaser nor, extinguishes right of the seller in

the subject property.

In view thereof, this Court is not satisfied that the

respondents are in contempt of order of this court.

Resultantly, this contempt petition is dismissed.

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

Sudha/43

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)