"i ^ "^tlt^W/^^eiei^S'wB^S,^^;:^^^^ f^ W THE:ffiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR ^^7-...^ -7 r-0 ,- TEMPT PeTFHeNNO.3^^' /2.009 "ir-n lllUI ,PPLI ...^^' &^^ a^ '^y Moti K.am Sahu S/o Late Pooran.Sahu, aged about 63 yeas occupatiQn , resident of yillage Sankara, Tahsil andDistrict-Dhamtari(C.G.) 1. Awadh Ram, S/o. Puran Sahu, aged about 5; , Sanliara, Taih & dist •,::..G.G. - ':;: . ' ., • 2. ^ x ETU'130 :OP, "Sk "-31 HiI-BI^KSSffite^SI ^!'i?11*3ffc3i!'l::i'i»il>i;B»S,ii :]:?^Ki'L.;;-ii.®[®^ sn^r^ir 1^lN3Tg?I wfn^ w^ 'ssi ^i<)id'ii, ®fl1wis,l°«'ii«i< 3^?T 'V^efS ..<^t;....&?. Wtiorgitoch IA-0. % S~2> 200 fa'b^ST' 31T^I ^SWHfttT SB ; Hon'ble Shri Manindra Moha 18-03-2011 Smt. Renu Kochar, counsel fot Shri Mohd. Tarik Haider, coun( This contempt petition has fc| the petib'oner. >el for respondent No.1. een filed by the pelitioner aileging willful disobedience oforderdated 19/11/O^passed in W.P.(C) No.6413/08. Leamed counsel for the petitij the Court directed status quo ^ possession of the property in dispi^ hearing. He submitted that in viotatit>n of that order, respondent No.1 handed over possession of the property in violated the order ofthe Court. A notice was issued on 11/02/ by respondent No.1, it has been stat( the Court, the possession oftheland erpcting the tower of Bharat Sanchs piaced bn record, documents to this effect (Annexure R-1/A and R-1/B). in view of the aforesaid, the affidavit and the document evidenc proceed further in the matter, partici petition with regard to the aforesaid cbi't|f<'l''i1-1 Nltlcil41ttZt tpaKSK irsipgiraii^r iShrjvastava. J. iner submitted that by the aforesaid order, btained on that day, with regard to the te to be maintained, till the next date of dispute to respondent No.2 and thereby |2010 to respondent No.1. In the reply filed ^d that even before passing of the order by |n dispute was given to respondent No.2 for |r Nigam Limited.. Respondent No.1 has statement made by respondent No.1 on hg fhat on 3/10/08, the possession was handed over by respondent No.1 t(> respondent No.2,1 am not inctined to larty when, there is no flnding in the writ factual aspect regarding handing over of possession on 3/10/08. The petitione|r would be at liberty to place the aforesaid facts in the writ petition. With the liberty as aforesaid, th|e rule issued Is discharged. The petition is finally disposed off. Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge [•q^^feTt yW^ •t>.. V