IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.818 of 2007 Uday Kumar Bhagat, s/o Sri Ganesh Prasad Bhagat, Resident of Village, P.O. and P.S. Beldaur, District-Khagaria Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Sri Mayank Barbare, father’s name not known, the District Magistrate- cum-Collector, District- Khagaria 3. Sri Abdul Mannan, father’s name not known, Sub-Divisional Officer, Gogri, District-Khagaria and now also in charge as the Deputy Collector Land Reforms Gogri District-Khagaria 4. Sri R.D. Ranjan, father’s name not known, Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Khagaria, District-Khagaria 5. Sri Saryug Das, father’s name not known, Circle Officer, Beldaur, P.S. Beldaur Distt.- Khagaria 6. Sri V.C. Yadav, father’s name not known, Incharge-cum-Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre Beldaur, P.S. Beldaur, Distt. Khagaria 7. Mrs. Preeta Verma, father’s name not known, the Superintendent of Police, Distt. Khagaria 8. Sri Parmeshwar Singh, father’s name not known, Officer-incharge, Beldaur, District – Khagaria 9. Sri Om Prakash Manjhi, father’s name not known posted as an Executive Engineer, Special Division, Beldaur ( Vishesh Pramandal) District-Khagaria. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Nawal Kishor Prasad, Advocate For the State: Mr. Dhurendra Kumar, AC to SC V. ----------- 2. 30.7.2009 Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to show as to what contempt has been committed by the opposite parties, officials of the State Government, of the orders dated 15.7.2002 and 9.1.2004 of this Court. It is true that by the earlier order there was a direction to the Presiding Officer of the Court before whom Execution Case No. 2/99 was pending to ask the Nazir to go to the land forming the subject-matter of the decree on August 17, 2002 at 10.00 A.M. and the District Magistrate was also directed to depute a Magistrate with sufficient armed forces to enable the petitioner to construct the boundary wall around the suit land without any let or hindrance 2 which had to be completed by the petitioner on August 17 and 18, 2002. The stand of the opposite parties, District Magistrate and other State officials is that the Execution Court did not depute the Nazir on August 17, 2002 for the said purpose nor informed the District Magistrate in this regard despite the matters having been pursued from his office. The said position has not been contested by the petitioner that there was no deputation of the Nazir on the said date or thereafter for the delivery of possession by the Execution Court. In the said circumstances, no case for contempt against any of the opposite parties is made out so far as the order 15.7.2002 passed in CWJC No. 3466/2002 is concerned. With respect to the order dated 9.1.2004 passed in C.R. Nos. 41 and 65 of 2003, learned counsel was unable to show any direction in his favour which could have been violated by any of the opposite parties. In fact, Civil Revision Application No. 41/2003 which was filed by strangers to the suit, who had filed an application under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the execution Court, was allowed and the matter was remanded to the court below to reconsider the application under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code according to law and it was further directed that till the decision thereon no step shall be taken to deliver the possession to the decree holder, i.e., the present petitioner. It is evident from the tenor of the said order that as a matter of fact, delivery of possession 3 to the decree holder-petitioner has itself been stayed by this Court and thus it cannot be said that the said order has been violated by the opposite parties. The order in fact, is against the present petitioner and no benefit can be claimed by the petitioner for alleged violation of the same. The Contempt application is accordingly dismissed. S. Pandey (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)