Suresh Chand and others vs Shamshul Haq and others

Sanjay Misra, J.

Heard Sri Anubhav Trivedi learned counsel for the petitioner.

The respondent No. 2 and others appear to have filed a writ petition No. 37224 of 2006 Satya Prakash and others Vs Suresh Chandra and others against the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation who had affirmed the order of the Consolidation Officer with respect to the interest of the petitioners here in over the land in question and the Writ Court did not find it a fit case to grant any interim relief in the writ petition. According to learned counsel for the petitioners here in the said petitioners of the writ petition filed yet another stay application which was rejected by the Writ Court on 4.4.2007 for the same reasons. He states that proceedings under Section 145 CRPC were initiated regarding the land in question and the same were stayed by this court by the order dated 29.7.2008 in a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1778 of 2008 Suresh Chandra and others Vs State of U.P. and others.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that when the opposite party No. 2 and others had failed in all their attempts even before the High Court they have filed a Suit No. 951 of 2008 Ram Kumar and others Vs Suresh Chandra and others and the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Gautam Buddha Nagar by the order dated 17.10.2008 has issued a restrained order against the petitioners from transferring the property in question. According to him the aforesaid injunction order issued by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) amounts to contempt of the earlier orders passed by the Writ Court whereby the interim application was rejected in the writ petition.

Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner it will be seen that the writ petition No. 37224 of 2006 Satya Prakash and others Vs Suresh Chandra and others was filed by the private respondents here in against the revisional order of the Consolidation authorities and the Writ Court did not find any ground made out for grant of interim order in the writ petition. Consequently according to learned counsel the order passed in Revision by the Consolidation authorities in favour of the petitioners was approved during pendency of the writ petition and hence he states that the injunction order issued in the suit No. 951 of 2008 is contemptuous of such order passed by the Writ Court. The injunction order indicates that the petitioners have been restrained from transferring the property during the pendency of the suit and notices have been issued to them. In case the petitioner is aggrieved by the grant of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff he can apply before the court for vacation of such order however it cannot be said that when the civil suit was filed and entertained an interim injunction was granted it would be contempt of the orders dated 20.7.2006 and 4.4.2007 passed in writ petition No. 37224 of 2006 whereby the interim relief application of the petitioners/contesting respondent was rejected.

For the aforesaid reasons no ground of contempt against the opposite party is made out in this contempt petition. It has no merits it is accordingly dismissed.

No order is passed as to costs.