f\^ v CAN IN THE fflGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) CONTEMPT PETITION ^NGLE BENCH UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION l2 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT CONTEMPT PETITION N0. 4^ OF 200'S y PETITIONER/ NON-APPLICANT ^^ .^^^- RESPONDENT APPLICANT/ CONTEMNOR vs Nathulal Agyawal S/o. Laxman Das Agrawal, aged about 77 years, resident of Kewdabadi Road, Arya Niwas, Neas Bus Stand, Raigarh, Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.G.) Smt. Gayatri Devi, Widow of late Shri Sant Lal Bansal, aged about 55 years, resident of Gandhi Ganj, Raigarh, Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.G.) CONTEMPT PETITION ^ UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT FOR INITIATDSTG OF CONTEMPT PROCEEDENGS AGAINST THE RESPONDENT/CONTEMNOR XI-HC-22 'Svi ^j|*i|<rl*|, »Ti1<H'|tB, facil'uy IINylT shlich sn^r Tra^ _ . , / // ^^^....^'^•^1o5 (c|<)<i8T" sii^i ^n WM 3D^I ^•qN^ ^tl^r sn^tTOii^cgfltr ^rai^4ir( ^ii^cS' ^ fe^ 1(,nti^i< ^SlfelHSII^T 03/02/a006 Shri M.K. Sinlia, Counsel fo Heard on adnussion. Leamed courisel for the fhe applicant. bpUcant contended fhat non- appUcant, Sint. Gayatri Devi, w|ho has filed Civil Revision No. 1647 {1995, has stated in: tier rew pendency of the appeal, where.as ofthesuit, fhereby she suppress( is fbat despite the order of the seven davs Sint. Gavatri Devi faflet It appears fhat Nafhulal, R; suit for eviction against the Ce pendeiicy of the suit Ramxuvas di jsion fhat RaiBLnivas died diirmg IRanuiivas died durins pendency )d the fact. Further contention pourt to pay process fee wittun to pav fhe same. Iminivas and Radheshvam filed a }ntral Bank of India. Duriug ^d and lower Court holding the sziit abated agaisnt Rairuiivas co4tinued the same aad ultimately decreed it id favoiir of Nafhulal ^nd Radheshyaxa. Central Bauk of India filed aa appeal and ia. p|ace of deceased Ramiuvas, fhey inade Sint. Pushpa Devi aadSnil Sint. Gayatod Devi purchased fh^ successors by registered sale 4 Rajni Devi party in that appeaL share of Ramiiivas froin his :ed. Therefore. she fited an application for unpleading her^ appUcation was disnussed and appears fhat Civil Revision No, ^lf iu fhe appeal. The said aggrieved wifh ttiat order, it 1647/1995 has been ffled under fhe sigaature of counsel aud in tl|iat rewision pctition at para 3 it has been iiientioned fhat Ramnlvas oriainal plaitttifiF No.2 died during pendency offhe appeal. [Tft^if^- XI-HC-22 '3 ( 'iiWW^ dTllWlto, fairtKH tfiini aitiich Jci-b<a" sn^rqiT R-ii'* sni!'?! sft+fl<t) -y[i^ <+i<4tyi41'i ^i^icii' Tt fel<Q <f^'^T< i[T aiPgtT anSsr raju Neifher fhe afcresaid. steteiaerjt inade ufcrevision petition nor ^ion-paynient of P.I?. \%ftun tune cc|mes within tfae ambit of Civil pinteiapt and no ofher coiiteiit^ons during aTguments have ^>een raised by the applicant. Therejfore, I am oftbe opiulon that ^io couteinpt has been coiumittcd b^ t>etition is disinissed. . In fhe lifttit ofabove order. IA ^iearing stands disposed of. \ the non-applicant, hence the No. 222/2006 foroutbftum Sd/- V.K. Shrivastava Judge ^N^ [Jft^^fe^