HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENT Contempt Petition No. 86of2004 Jodhan, aged about 52 years, S/o Shri Vishwanath Nishad, resident of 'Village Pldhi, Patwari Halka No.2, Tehsil & District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh) Versus Ghasuram, S/o Shri Gopal Chandrakar, resident of Viliage Pidhi, Tehsil & District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh) (Contempt PetltionunderArticle 215 ofthe Constnution of Indfa read with Section 12 of the Contemot of Courts Act) Apoearance: Mr. B.D. Guru, Advocate forthe petitioner. Mr. P.K.C. Thwari, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Steshi Bhusan, Advocate for the respondent. ORAL ORDH^ (07.04.2010) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J. Heard. Petitioner-Jodhan has filed this petition for inlttation of proceedings ofcontempt againstttie respondent forthe alleged default in compliance of the order dated 7.5.2004 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 475/2004. This Court whiteadmitting the writ petition for heacing passed the followinginterim orderon 7.5.2004:- "In the meanwhlle, purely as an interim measure, it is directed that if the petitioner has already not been dispossessed, he shall not be dispossessed till the next date of hearing." Mr. B.D. Guru submits that after passing of the order dated 7.5.2004, the petitioner has been dispossessed by the respondent from the disputed land, therefore, the action ofthe respondent is in violation of the order dated 7.5.2004 passed by this Court. Contempt Petition No. 86 of2004 ^ ~~^. vattl On notice, a reply on behalf of the respondent has been filed. The respondent has categorically contended vide Para-8 of the reply that the- the petitioner was never in possesslon of the disputed land and there is no material in the main petttion or present petition to show that when , by whom and in what manner the possession of the disputed land was delivered to the petitioner. It has further been contended that the respondent Is in throughout possession of the tand. During the course of arguments, Mr. B.D. Gum could not point out any circumstance which mayshow that the petltioner was In possession of the disputed tand on or before 7.5.2004. In light of the above facts and cireumstances of the case, particularty in light of the categoricat contentions made by the respondent vide Para-8 of the repty, 1 do not deem it appropriate to proceed further In the matter. Aceordingly, Contempt Petition No. 86 of 2004 is dropped at this stage. Sd/- sunil Kumar Sinha Judge