Court No. - 10
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 5437 of 2019 Applicant :- Udaybhan Singh Opposite Party :- Sanjay Singh, Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) Third And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar,Amar Singh Yadav
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Standing Counsel.
The applicant is before this Court against the wilful defiance of the order dated 11.7.2019 passed in Matters Under Article 227 No.4848 of 2019 (Udaybhan Singh v. Civil Judge (JD) Third, Distt. Jaunpur & Ors.), which for ready reference, is quoted as under:-
"The prayer made in the instant petition is for issuing direction to the trial court to decide application 11-Ga dated 2.5.2019 in Original Suit No.408 of 2019 within a stipulated time frame and till disposal of the said application, direct the parties to maintain status quo.
The prayer made in the application is for grant of temporary injunction. The defendants have not been served in the suit so far.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the defendant-respondents against whom the plaintiff has filed the suit for partition are raising constructions.
Having regard to the facts of the case and the submissions made, the instant petition is disposed of with direction to the trial court to make serious endeavour to decide the application 11-Ga expeditiously, by fixing short dates soon after defendant-respondents are served. In the meantime, in view of the fact that the defendant-respondents are alleged to be raising constructions over the suit property, it is hereby directed that the parties shall maintain status quo in respect of the same for a period of four weeks from today.
The trial court shall decide the injunction application without being influenced by the order of status quo passed by this Court as a temporary measure to protect the suit property."
Admittedly the aforesaid order has been placed before the trial court on 31.7.2018 and on the said date the defendant had moved an adjournment application, which had not been opposed by the plaintiff-applicant and as such the matter was posted for 6.8.2019. Nothing has been brought on record regarding the subsequent dates in the said proceeding.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that once the proceeding in question is pending consideration, in case the applicant is aggrieved with the non- compliance of the order in question passed by the High Court, the applicant has alternative efficacious remedy to move appropriate application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC and as such the Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter under the Contempt of Courts Act.
The contempt application stands disposed of accordingly. Notices, if any, stand discharged.
Order Date :- 26.8.2019 SP/