Masjid Idgah Vali Bahadur Shah vs Nanhe Khan And Another ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 6309 Raj/2

[2023:RJ-JP:31596]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 1310/2012

                                        In

                 S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.177/2000

Masjid Idgah Vali Bahadur Shah, Situated at Malak Para, Tehsil
Bari, District Dholpur through Sadar/Mutvalli Gunga S/o Kallan,
R/o Malak Para, Tehsil Bari, District Dholpur.
                                                        ----Appellant/Petitioner
                                    Versus
1. Nanhe Khan S/o Deen Mohammed
2. Liyakat Khan S/o of Nanhe Khan
Both R/o Malak Para, Tehsil Bari, District Dholpur.
                                               ----Respondents/Contemnors

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Kamwar For Respondent(s) : Dr. P.C. Jain

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

Judgment / Order

30/10/2023

This contempt petition has been filed alleging wilful

disobedience of the interim order dated 19.09.2006 passed by this

Court whereby, both the parties were directed to maintain the

status quo in respect of the property in dispute during pendency

of the civil second appeal.

Referring to a photograph placed on record as Annexure-3

alongwith the memo of the contempt petition, learned counsel for

the petitioner would submit that in violation of the aforesaid

interim order, the respondents have raised construction on the

disputed property. He, therefore, prays that the respondents may

[2023:RJ-JP:31596] (2 of 2) [CCP-1310/2012]

be directed to purge the contempt and they may also be punished

suitably.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents denies the

aforesaid allegation. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the

contempt petition.

Heard. Considered.

It is trite law that the standard of proof in contempt petition

is akin to criminal proceeding. Merely on the strength of an

undated photograph which does not reveal to where it belongs, no

such findings can be recorded that the respondents have raised

construction on the disputed property in violation of the interim

order dated 19.09.2006.

Resultantly, this contempt petition is dismissed.

The notices are discharged.

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

Manish/57

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)