-£@ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR fC.G.1 C^S^-l^) CONTEMPTECTFHeiM N0..2'3f OFJ^ ^e\G PETITIONER z~ ^Lakshami Prasad, aged about 48 years Son of LateShri Bisahu, }^--:^y ^^":^^-- ^^^^"" Resident of Village Gataura, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.). w-y'1' .KESPONDENT VERSUS Shri Jayadeep Vijaya Nimodakar, aged about 50 years Son of Not known, the Learned Judge to the Court of 6th Additional District Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.). CONTEMPT PETTIION UNDER SECTION Y2 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT READ WITH ARTICLE P215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WILLFULLY DISOBEYING THE ORDER DATED 25.02.2009, PASSED IN CIVIL REVISION N0. 131/2008 BY MY LORD SHRI T. P. SHARMA JI, THE HON'BLE JUDGE OFTHIS HIGH COURT. p M^ H!GHCOURT^F CHHATTJSGARH : B1LASPUR Single Bench: Hon'bleShri Manindra IVIohan Shrivastava, J. Petitioner Respondent Contempt Case (CivillN0.23'Lot2010 Laxmi Prasad Versus Shri Jayadeep Vijaya Nimodakar (Contempt Petition under Section12 of the Contempt of Couris Act, 1971 read with Article 215 ofthe Constitution of India) Present: - Shri M. D. Sharma, counsel forthe petitioner. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 16-03-2011) This petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging willful disobedience of order dated 25-02-2009 passed by this Court in Civil Revision No.131 of 2008. 2. Case of the petitioner is that the petitioner along with other plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, which was decreed on 30-07-2007. The de.fendant in the suit preferred an appeal, which was barred by limitation. The application for condonation of delay was filed along with an appeal, which was allowed without issuing any notice to the petitioner; therefore, the said order of condonation of deiay was challenged in Civil Revision No. 131 of 2008. That revision was allowed vide order dated 25-02-2009 with a direction to the first appellate Court to provide opportunity of hearihg to both the parties and pass orders afresh on the application for condonation of delay. However, even thereafter, the respondent did not decide the application affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as ordered by this Court in Civil Revision No.131 of 2008, but pass an order on 15-04-2009 that the application for condonation of delay would be considered at the time of hearing of the appeal on merits. 's""a».\ •%, 1 l<£§3|) I- ^ 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that such a course of action adopted by the respondent was not correct and legal, and therefore, the same was also challenged by filing a writ petition registered as W.P. (227) No.2144 of 2009, which was also disposed off vide its order dated 30-04-2009 directing the Court below to first decide the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and thereafter to proceed and decide appeal itselfon merits. 4. In Civil Revision No.131 of 2008, order dated 21-11-2007, by which, the appiication for condonation of delay was allowed, was set aside holding that the petitioner was entitled to notice before decision on the said application. The case was remitted back to the First Appellate Court for providing opportunity of hearing to both the parties and pass orders afresh on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Thereafter, the application was not decided, but itwas ordered that the same shall be considered at the time of hearing of appeal on merits. After that, another order has been passed by this Court on 30-04-2009 directing that the application for condonation of delay should be decided first. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that thereafter neither application has been decided nor appeal. Learned counsel submitted that the course of action adopted by the respondent in differing hearing of application for condonation of delay and passing an order that the application for condonation of delay shall be heard at the time of hearing of appeal on merits, is contemptuous and illegal as application for condonation of delay is required to be decided first. 6. Apart from legality or illegality of order dated 1 5-04-2009 passed in judicial proceedings by the respondent, 1 find myself unable to accept this submission that by that by passing such an order on 15-04-2009, any contempt has been committed. The earlier order, by which, the application for condonation of delay was allowed, was set aside on the ground that the petitioner was not noticed and s';.y!S. "%' '•y -3 the matter was remitted back for deciding the same after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is not the case of the petitioner that the application has again been decided without giving opportunity of hearing. Therefore, 1 am not inclined to issue any notice. 7. In the result, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- Ma"!"dra Mo^" Shrivastava Judge Tumane