-i- I1M THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. AT BILASPUR CONTEMPTCASENO ^-0<> /2008 fARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 24.7.2006 PASSED IN W.P.NO.3^8/2003 BY HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI Applicants Petitjoners S.R.NAYAK) l.(A) Smt. Kanta Ben Pithaliya, aged about 79 years, Wd./o Late Ishwar Lal Pithaliya. (B) Jashwant Pithaliya, aged 50 years, S/o. Late Ishwar Lal ,VV..^--1"^^(C) Harish Pithaliya. afled 45 •••*'*'*- •.--,-^^l.^t^'^" * ftlS^^.TL%-•''''' years, s/o. Late Ishwar Lal ?^.,..-£>^} """"" ' cz^^[v' .^ \v- Pithaliya. All R/o. Pithaliya Complex, Fafadih Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Corftemnors ^ Kishore Chandra Pithaljya, aged 54 y3ears, S/o. Late Narayan Bhai Pithaliya. Kailash Chandra Pithaliya, aged about • years S/o. Late Narayan Bhai Pithaliya. All R/o. Pithaliya Complex, Fafadih Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Milind Chanti, Business Manager, Motor Industries Company Limited, second story Pithaliya complex, in front of Telephone Exchange, Fafadih, Raipur Tahasil/ District Raipur (C.G.). -2- ^' ^S.K.C^tfce^eA^C.Gi.M; r$^'' 4.t®raft€h—Managcr,^ Rastriya Krishi aur Gramin Vikas Bank, Pithaliya Complex, Fafadih, Raipur, Tahasil/District Raipur (C.G.). 5. Pankaj Agrawal (C.A.), Second story, Pithaliya Complex, Fafadih, Raipur, Tahasil/District Raipur (C.G.). CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2l5 OF THE CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 11 & 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT. I-HC-22 ^TT^T^T k-ii<=h sni^r ^qw^Frf^r «•• -T -^st ^rqi^T, •^^ftw^. rs<diyli< Sff^T -q^r^ WW'TT^^T^ {.Cl<-o ^^l^ 200 \^\(. "" t^^s?" ^TT^T'^nW^T SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Moharii Shrivastava. J QS-Q4-2011 Shri Akhiiesh Kumar, couns^i on behaif of Shri Ratan Pusty, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Sameer Urao, counsei fo|- respondents No.1 and 2. Earlier notices were issued counsel for the respondents No.1 a|id 2 appears today and submits thai the respondent does not wish to file any| petition has been finally decided on The case of the petitioners| to aiienate or create any charge fioor and also inducted respondents to vioJation of interim order passed &t/ the Court. The aiiegations contained in ailegations that contemnors have ra property. Even if such submission <^I^I<n<flr1 TTFRTf ^ 1^st <r^^l< '^^ri^R^T^T to respondent No.1 and 2. Learned repiy. He however, submits that the writ /3/2011 and hasbeen dismissed. is that in the writ petition filed by the petitioner registered as Vv'.P.No.33p8/03, an interim order was passed on 24/7/06 wherein an order was pass^d that the respondents are direcfed, not over the schedule property during the pendency of the writ petition. Learned counsei for the petitponers submits that during the pendency of the petition, the respondents ha\<je made certain construction on the third |No.3, 4 and 5 as ienants, which amounts :he petition as also contents of the notice given by the petitioners show th^t this petition has been fiied on the |sed further construction over the building and inducted some tenants, whici^ amounts to creating charge over the is accepted, it is difficuit for this Court to hold that such action amounts to jcreating charge over the property. No document has been piaced on recorci to substantiate such contention. Therefore, I am not inclined to proceed further in the matter. Ruie is therefbre discharged. The petitionars however, would be at iiberty to revive [^^Zj ^®^ HC-22 3n^T^r ^Jpb 3TT^T ^HW^ff^T Deepii •^^ ^oc[ ^{t^id<Ll, ^n1^^<o. r®«ni^li< WH^fT^^t^ Sll^T^xm^ (e) ,..d?^i::....CA^..^lt/UD • S<T§~I^ 200 '^^s.r' the petition, if any charge over the cj and 2 during the period, interim orde| The petition is finaily dispose^ <=hl^fcn41ri 'RTR^JT ^ ^Q ^^K ^STf^R^T^T iroperty was created by respondent No.1 ^ remained in force. orf. ^_ Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge [^^ tir^