Ms. Aishwarya D/O Ramswaroop Jogi vs Ramswaroop Jogi S/O Sh. Gondi Lal ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 6066 Raj/2

[2023:RJ-JP:29651]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 385/2022

Ms. Aishwarya D/o Ramswaroop Jogi, Aged About 18 Years,
Minor Through Natural Guardian Shri Ramswaroop Jogi S/o Shri
Godi Lal Jogi, R/o 44, Pal Colony, Mali Ki Kothi, Agra Road,
Jaipur.
                                                                          ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.        Ramswaroop Jogi S/o Sh. Gondi Lal Gogi, Aged About 38
          Years, R/o 44, Pal Colony, Mali Ki Kothi, Agra Road, Jaipur.
2.        Dr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, Principal Medical Officer, Tonk
          (Rajasthan).
                                                                    ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dharmendra Joshi For Respondent(s) : Dr. V.B. Sharma, AAG with Mr. Aman Bhargava, Mr. Avinash Choudhary Mr. Ram Prasad Sharma for Mr. Prahlad Sharma

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

Judgment / Order

16/10/2023

This contempt petition has been filed alleging wilful

disobedience of the order dated 06.09.2012 passed by the learned

District Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan in Civil Misc. Succession

Application no.1948/2011 whereby, while allowing the application

filed by the petitioner/applicant no.2 (for brevity, "the petitioner")

and the respondent no.1/applicant no.1 (for brevity, "the

respondent no.1") under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act,

1925, the respondent no.1 was directed to file an undertaking to

the effect that till attaining the age of majority by the petitioner,

[2023:RJ-JP:29651] (2 of 3) [CCP-385/2022]

the respondent no.1 would not misuse the property against her

interest and in case of any other claimant of the amount in future,

he would be bound to return the same as per direction of the

Court. Alleging that the respondents no.1 has not furnished the

undertaking in terms of the aforesaid order as also that he has

withdrawn the amount, learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the respondent no.1 may be directed to purge the contempt

and he may also be punished suitably.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 denies

the allegation.

Heard. Considered.

In pursuance of direction dated 06.09.2012 issued by the

learned District Judge, the respondent no.1 has filed two

undertakings placed on record along with the memo of contempt

petition collectively as Annexure-2. Although, the undertaking

available on Page no.19 of the paper-book is not in conformity

with the direction dated 06.09.2012; but, another undertaking

available on Page No.20 is in conformity with the aforesaid

direction. Although, the later undertaking contains a further

stipulation not warranted under the order dated 06.09.2012,

however, this undertaking is in substantial compliance of the

direction issued by the learned District Judge. Therefore, this

Court cannot countenance the submission of the learned counsel

for the petitioner that the respondent no.1 did not submit the

undertaking as directed.

Further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner

that despite an injunction by the learned District Judge not to

withdraw the amount, the respondent no.1 has withdrawn the

[2023:RJ-JP:29651] (3 of 3) [CCP-385/2022]

amount, is wholly misconceived and misplaced. This Court finds

no direction by the learned District Judge in the order dated dated

06.09.2012 requiring the respondent no.1 not to withdraw the

amount. Even otherwise also, it could not have been so once the

respondent no.1 was directed to furnish an undertaking that he

would not use the amount against the interest of the petitioner as

both the directions cannot exist mutually.

Resultantly, this Court finds no merit in the contempt

petition. The same is dismissed accordingly.

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

Sudha/170

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)