Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Parasmal vs Meema Devi (2025:Rj-Jd:5160-Db) on 27 January, 2025
Author: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
[2025:RJ-JD:5160-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Writ Contempt No. 1145/2022
1. Parasmal S/o Shri Poonam Chand, Aged About 50 Years,
Resident Of Village Pal, Tehsil And District Jodhpur
2. Heera Lal S/o Shri Champa Lal, Aged About 57 Years,
Resident Of Village Pal, Tehsil And District Jodhpur
3. Jagdish S/o Shri Madan Lal, Aged About 57 Years,
Resident Of Village Pal, Tehsil And District Jodhpur
4. Gottam Chand S/o Shri Kistoor Mal, Aged About 63 Years,
Resident Of Village Pal, Tehsil And District Jodhpur
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Meema Devi W/o Lt. Shri Gopa Ram, R/o
2. Shri Kishna Ram S/o Shri Gopa Ram, R/o
3. Shri Sumera Ram S/o Shri Gopa Ram, R/o
4. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Tehsildar, Jodhpur
5. Rakesh Choudhary, At Present Patwari, Village Pal,
Jodhpur.
6. Jitendra S/o Khanga Ram, R/o Bheel Basti, Devandi Road,
Siwana, Barmer
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. O.P. Mehta, through V.C.
Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari,
Mr. V.D. Gaur.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sharad Kothari.
Mr. Ravinder Jhala for Mr. S.S.
Ladrecha, AAG.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR
Order
27/01/2025
This contempt petition alleges wilful disobedience of the
order dated 10.01.2013 passed by the Division Bench of this Court
in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.885/2012.
2. The petitioners allege that even though this Court passed
interim order to the effect that until further orders status quo with
[2025:RJ-JD:5160-DB] (2 of 7) [WCP-1145/2022]
regard to the land involved and in occupation of the petitioners as
on the date in all respects is to be maintained, the respondents
No.1 to 3 not only proceeded to enter into agreement to sell the
property in dispute to respondent No.6, Jitendra by executing an
agreement dated 28.01.2022 but one of them Sumera Ram also
submitted an application on 21.09.2022 before the Tehsildar for
mutation of his name, which was clearly an act of disturbing the
status quo.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents-contemnor No.1 to 3 on
the other hand would submit that they have not committed any
contempt. It is submitted that this Court passed ex-parte interim
order dated 10.01.2013 directing status quo be maintained. It is
the assertion of the respondents No.1 to 3 that they are in
possession of the property and this bona fide assumption and
assertion of possession cannot be treated as an act of wilful
disobedience. It is also submitted that the matter is still pending
and the same is yet to be decided, where the respondents No.1 to
3 would satisfy the Court that the interim order, which was passed
on 10.01.2013, was not justified and they are in possession. The
other submission is that the so-called agreement dated
28.01.2022 does not bear the signature of respondent No.6, and
therefore, it cannot be said that by executing an agreement, an
attempt was made to disturb the status-quo order passed by this
Court on 10.01.2013. He would submit that till date respondents
have not executed any such agreement in favour of respondent
No.6 or anyone else. It is also submitted that application for
mutation before the Tehsildar was preferred by Sumera Ram on
21.09.202 with bona fide assertion that he remains in possession
[2025:RJ-JD:5160-DB] (3 of 7) [WCP-1145/2022]
of the property, and therefore, he is entitled to get his name
mutated though it is a different matter that the mutation was not
ordered.
4. After going through the contempt petition and the
documents and so also the reply, we find that on 10.01.2013, this
Court passed the interim order to the following effect:
Heard Mr. Singhvi, learned Senior counsel
appearing for the appellants.
Issue notice in the appeal as well as the prayer
for interim relief, returnable within three weeks.
Until further orders, status quo with regard to the
land involved and in occupation of the petitioners as
on date in all respects is to be maintained.
5. The order is quite clear. It says that the status quo with
regard to land involved and in occupation of the petitioners as on
the date in all respects is to be maintained. The spirit of the order
was that the Court at that stage treated the land to be land
involved in dispute to be in occupation of the appellants and status
quo was directed to be maintained. This order not only bound the
appellants but also other respondents in the case.
6. True it is that it was an ex parte interim order, but the
records of D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 885/2012 would indicate
that the respondents particularly contemnors namely Meema Devi,
Krishna Ram and Sumera Ram had started appearing in the case
and the case was pending consideration. It is clear that each of
them was in full notice and knowledge of the interim order dated
10.01.2013. The spirit of the order was that none of the parties
shall disturb the status quo and maintain the same. The order
[2025:RJ-JD:5160-DB] (4 of 7) [WCP-1145/2022]
requires the parties not to do anything with the land much less
any attempt to alter the records or create third party interest.
7. The petitioners have placed on record the documents which
is purported to be an agreement dated 28.01.2022. A perusal of
the document shows that it bears signature of Meema Devi,
Krishna Ram and Sumera Ram but the document does not bear
the signature of the intending purchaser namely Jitendra
(respondent no. 6). In the reply, which has been filed by
respondents no. 1 to 3, it is not disputed on the plea that the
document was not prepared by respondents no. 1 to 3 or that it
does not bear their signatures. An evasive reply has been given
that it was not executed or concluded and that it does not bear
the signature of Jitendra.
8. Taking into consideration the averments which have been
made in the contempt petition as also in the reply, it can be
inferred that the respondents no. 1 to 3 got this agreement
drafted and prepared and have also put their signatures on the
agreement, however, for the reasons best known to them, the
same could not be executed.
9. We also find that Sumera Ram filed an application on
21.09.2022 before the Tehsildar seeking mutation of his name in
respect of the property which was subject matter of dispute before
this Court and in the spirit of which the status quo was to be
maintained.
10. The contents of the agreement drafted and the applications
made to various authorities seeking mutation also create a false
impression as if the property is free from any dispute or
encumbrances, whereas on the date when the draft of the
[2025:RJ-JD:5160-DB] (5 of 7) [WCP-1145/2022]
agreement was prepared and signed by the three contemnors and
the application was submitted before the Tehsildar seeking
mutation, they were in full notice and knowledge that the appeal
is pending and the status quo order has been passed.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents cited before us certain
judgments to submit that the word 'status quo' does not mean
that the land was in possession of the appellant. All the judgments
which have been cited before us are distinguishable on facts. In
the present case, an interim order passed on 10.01.2013 clearly
records that the status quo with regard to land involved and in
occupation of the petitioners as on the date shall be maintained.
Therefore, the interim order not only records the land involved to
be in occupation of the appellant but also directs status quo to be
maintained. What was open for the respondents was to seek
vacation of the interim order by asserting that they are in
possession rather than giving impression to all that the property is
in their possession and it is free from any encumbrances.
12. We, however, find that the draft of the agreement dated
28.01.2022 though signed by the contemnors does not bear the
signature of respondent no. 6 Jitendra. That only leads to an
inference that though the agreement was prepared but for one
reason or the other, it could not be executed and, therefore, no
right was created in favour of any third party. Had it been
executed, the agreement to sell the property, certainly, a right
enforceable under the law seeking specific performance of contract
could have been created in favour of the third party. At the same
time, it is clear that the respondents Meema Devi, Krishna Ram
and Sumera Ram left no stone unturned to ensure that the
[2025:RJ-JD:5160-DB] (6 of 7) [WCP-1145/2022]
property is disposed off or third party interest is created, though it
was not permissible, being against the interim order.
13. The application for mutation followed by report from the
Patwari pales into insignificance because on complaint made by
the petitioners, the Sub Divisional Magistrate got inquiry made
and the Patwari's report was found to be wrong and the same was
set aside.
14. At the end, we find that the respondents No.1 to 3 made all
attempt to disturb the status quo though they could not succeed
in the same for one reason or the other.
15. Taking into consideration above, we come to the conclusion
and record a finding that the respondents No.1 to 3 made all
attempts to disturb the status quo and are therefore guilty of
committing disobedience of the order passed by this Court. The
mitigating circumstances, however, are that neither third party
interest could be created nor the mutation was ordered by
Tehsildar. Therefore, in these circumstances, though we hold the
respondents No.1 to 3 to be guilty of contempt of court, instead of
imposing jail sentence, we are inclined to impose fine of
Rs.2,000/- payable by each of them within a period of one month
before the Registry of this Court.
16. The contempt petition is disposed off with a clear warning to
the respondents No.1 to 3 that any attempt made in future to
disturb the status quo will be viewed more strictly and if it is found
that the order is being violated, this Court may proceed to impose
jail sentence.
17. As far as respondents No.5 and 6 are concerned, there is
nothing on record to show that at the time when the Patwari
[2025:RJ-JD:5160-DB] (7 of 7) [WCP-1145/2022]
prepared the report, he was apprised of the fact that there is an
interim order of the status quo operating in the case and any
attempt would amount to disturbing the status quo. Similarly,
there is nothing on record to show that Jitendra had entered into
an agreement to sell, having full notice and knowledge of the
interim order.
18. Curiously enough, the affidavit filed from the side of the
petitioners show that Jitendra passed on certain consideration in
favour of Meema Devi, Krishna Ram and Sumera Ram. We are not
entering into that aspect at this stage.
19. In the result, the contempt petition is accordingly disposed
off.
(PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ
43-a.asopa/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
