Sardar Nirmal Singh vs Dr. Sanjay Goyal And Ors.

In compliance of order dated 19.11.2019, the counsel for respondent No.4 has produced the copy of order dated 19.11.2019 to show that order of mutation has been passed, but it is submitted by Shri Agrawal that because of certain procedural delays, the actual implementation of this order would take some time and he has already requested the Collector to direct for correction in the revenue entry in the computer as well as also has directed the Patwari to carry out the actual mutation in the revenue records.

The order dated 19.11.2019 which has been produced by the counsel for respondent No.4 does not disclose that any request has been made to the Collector or any direction has been given to the Patwari for compliance of this mutation order. However, without doubting the authenticity of the statement made by Shri Agrawal, call this case at 4 pm. In case if the Collector fails to issue instructions for uploading the corrected revenue entries and Patwari fails to carry out the mutation proceedings in the revenue records, then Collector, Gwalior, shall remain present at 4 pm.

Unfortunately, during the course of hearing when this Court inquired from Shri Agrawal that why the contemnor is not present, then on the Board itself he took out his mobile and projected as if he was inclined to call the contemnor in the functioning Court. Accordingly, under the orders of this Court, the mobile of Shri Nitin Agrawal has been seized. It was not expected from Shri Agrawal to behave in such a manner. If the contemnor was not available inside the Court, then the counsel could have gone outside the Court for calling the contemnor, after taking due permission. Accordingly, the seized mobile be sent to the Principal Registrar of this Court who is directed to deal with the same in accordance with the norms.

Call at 4 pm.

Later on

The contemnor/respondent No.4 appears in person with Shri Nitin Agrawal.

It is submitted by Shri Nitin Agrawal that name of the petitioner has been mutated in the revenue records and has also produced the computerized copy of Khasra Panchshala.

It is submitted by Shri Sameer Kumar Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioner, that order has been complied with and he is satisfied with the compliance.

Although the contemnor did not comply with the order voluntarily, which is not appreciated, however, in view of the satisfaction expressed by the counsel for the petitioner, contempt proceedings are dropped.