SPA/118/2022
2022 Latest Caselaw 2937 UK

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                                  AT NAINITAL
                 THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
                                          AND
                        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.C. KHULBE

                    SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 118 OF 2022

                           12TH SEPTEMBER, 2022

BETWEEN:
Alizan                                                            .....Appellant.
And

C. Ravishankar & others                                           ....Respondents.

Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. M.K. Goyal, learned counsel.

The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Vipin Sanghi)

The present special appeal is directed against the

order dated 03.03.2022, rendered by the learned Single

Judge, in Civil Misc. Contempt Application No.73 of 2020,

preferred by the appellant.

2. By the impugned order, the said contempt

proceedings were closed and notice issued to the respondents

was discharged. The appellant preferred the said contempt

application to claim that the respondents have deliberately

and willfully violated the directions issued by this Court in

Writ Petition (PIL) No.101 of 2013 on 20.06.2018, whereby

the Registrar, Uttarakhand Cooperative Societies was directed

to ensure the restoration of the Society's land as per the

order dated 28.03.2014.

3. The appellant preferred the contempt application

alleging that under the garb of the said order passed in Writ

Petition (PIL) No.101 of 2013 on 20.06.2018, he has been

physically dispossessed from the land.

4. Upon issuance of the notice, the compliance

affidavit was filed by respondent nos.1 and 2. The learned

Single Judge while passing the impugned order took note of

the stand taken by respondent no.2 in Paragraph No.7 of the

affidavit and, thereafter, proceeded further which reads as

follows:-

"3. From the averments made in the aforesaid compliance affidavits, this Court is satisfied that substantial compliance of the order of writ court has been made, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping this contempt petition pending.

4. Accordingly, contempt petition is closed. Notice issued to the respondents are discharged".

5. To claim that the present special appeal is

maintainable against the dismissal of the contempt

application, learned counsel for the appellant has sought

place reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the

case of "Midnapore Peoples' Cooperative Bank Ltd. &

others vs. Chunilal Nanda & others, (2006) 5 SCC 399",

and in particular Paragraph 11 (V) thereof, which reads as

follow:-

"11 (V.) If the High Court decides an issue or makes any direction, relating to the merits of the dispute

between the parties, in a contempt proceedings, the aggrieved person is not without remedy. Such an order is open to challenge in an intra-court appeal (f the order was of a Single Judge and there was a provision for an intra-court appeal), or by seeking special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution (in other cases)".

6. On a plain reading of the impugned order, it is clear

to us that the learned Single Judge, while passing the

impugned order has not issued or made any direction,

relating to merits of the dispute between the parties. The

learned Single Judge has not made any observation on the

title claim made by the appellant in the contempt proceeding.

7. Aforesaid being the position, the present appeal is

not maintainable and is dismissed as such.

8. Since we find that the present special appeal is not

maintainable, we are not going into the aspect of delay.

9. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

(VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.)

(R.C. KHULBE, J.) Dated: 12th September, 2022 NISHANT