IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1836 of 2008 Smt. Kanchan Kumari & Ors Versus Sri Tapeshwar Upadhyay & Ors ----------- For the petitioners : Mr. Abhay Kumar, Advocate For the opposite parties : Mr. Ranjeet Tiwary, Advocate. --------- 20/ 17.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. This petition has been filed for initiating a proceeding of contempt against the appellants-opposite parties for violation of orders of this court dated 17.09.2007, 03.01.2008 and 01.05.2008 passed in S.A.No.370 of 1994 by which the appellants- opposite parties were restrained from making construction over the suit land on plot nos. 1186, 1361 and 1229. 3. The matter was considered in detail by this court vide order dated 23.03.2011 in which it was found that there was oath against oath and there was no valid material to rely upon the statements of one party or the other. Hence, the learned District Judge, Jehanabad was directed to get a spot verification held by any survey knowing commissioner to ascertain as to whether the opposite parties have constructed any pillar and/or wall over any portion of Plot Nos. 1186, 1361 and 1229 situated in Mauza Chagori under P.S. Shakurabad in the district of Jeghanabad and if any such construction was found whether it was made after the order of this court dated 17.09.2007 passed in S.A.No.370 of 1994. It was also directed that the said inquiry must be made in presence - 2 - of both the parties or their authorised representatives without giving any undue adjournment and the parties were directed to cooperate in early disposal of the matter and if they fail to appear on any date fixed, the enquiry must not stop for the said reason. By the said order, the petitioners were also directed to file an application to this effect before the District Judge, Jehanabad along with a copy of the said order dated 23.03.2011 within fifteen days from that date and to bear the expenses of such enquiry, if any, whereafter the District Judge concerned was directed to get the enquiry done and report sent to this court within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of that order. 4. From the averments made by learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record, it is quite apparent that the aforesaid order dated 23.03.2011 was officially sent to the District Judge, Jehanabad where it was received on 11.04.2011. It is also found that although the petitioners were directed to file an application before the said District Judge within fifteen days from the date of order dated 23.03.2011 along with a copy of that order, but admittedly the said order was not complied and even according to the claim of the petitioners, they approached the District Judge, Jehanabad on 09.05.2011 filing a copy of the said order of this court. 5. However, a report dated 19.05.2011 has been received from the District Judge, Jehanabad in which it was informed that as per the direction of this court, the petitioner had - 3 - not filed any application till date before that court although a long time has lapsed. There is also nothing to show that the petitioners have complied even other parts of the said order of this court dated 23.03.2011. 5. Considering the claims of the parties and the materials on record, it is quite apparent that the petitioners have not complied the specific directions of this court and have not taken proper steps with respect to the inquiry by the District Judge as per the directions of this court due to which the District Judge has been unable to submit her report even after lapse of about five months. 6. In the said circumstances, there is no material to support the claim of the petitioners, who have also failed to comply the specific directions of this Court. Hence this petition is dismissed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)