BEFORE THE COURT OF HIGH GOURTOF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR -^fez^^&/ CONTEMPT;raA8l@¥MNO. ®ngf9 /2008 PETITIONER •w- • ^ff: ''•' •f^ -^ ^^. ^'^' tfc>.. °'.°••' r .V.8CJ Panchuram S/o Halal Nirmalkar, aged about 45 years, Agriculturist, R/o ViUage Katangi, Patwari Circle No. 6, Tahsil Chhuikhadan, Distnct Rajnandgaon C.G. VERSUS RESPONDENT CONTEMNOR Shri Ram S/o Kartikram Nirmalkar, aged about 39 years, R/o Village Katangi, Patwari Circle No. 6, Tahsil Chhuikhadan, Dista-ict Rajnandgaon C.G. CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE215 READWITH ARTICLE 14 OFTHE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT x N' HIGHCOURtOF CHHATTISGARH :^ILASPUR Sihgle Bench: Non'bleShri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. Contembt Case (C) No.248/2008 Petitioner Respondent Contemnor Panchuram Versus Shn' Ram (Contempt Petition underSection 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act read with under Article 215 of tKe Gonstitution of India) Present: - Shri Rakesh Pandey, counsel for the petitioner. Shri K. A. Ansari, Senior Advocate with Shri Vipin Singh, counsel for respondent. ORALORDER (Passedon 10-02-2011) This contempt petition is filed by the petitioner alleging violation ofinterim orderdated 14-01-2008 passed bythis Court in First Appeal No.04 of 2008. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was a boriafide purchaser of land ad-measuring 20 Decimal situated in Khasra No.254/4, Patwari Halka No.06, VillageKatangi.Tahsil Chhuikhadan, Distriet Rajnandgaon, which hehad purchased from Shiv Dayal. One Rajkumari filed a suit against Shiv Dayal wherein a decree was passed in favour of Rajkumari. In execution of the decree, properties including the land purchased by the petitioner-Panchuram from Shiv Dayal were auctioned. The petitioner moved an objection beforethe Executing Court stating that he is a bonafide purchaser, and therefore, the land which he had purchased from Shiv Dayal could not be sold in auction in satisfaction of decree. The said application was rejected on 27-11-2007 by the Executing Court ahd the order was passed for handing over the possession.Aggrieved bythe said order, the petitioner preferred FirstAppeal which was registered as First Appeal No.04 of 2008 wherein this Court passed -2_— v'. an interim order on 04-01-2008 and by the said order, this Court ordered that till the next date of hearing, the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 27-11-2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, Khairagarh in execution proceedings shall remainstayed. Learned counsel forthe petitionersubmitted that till that day, the possession was not handed over to the respondent in compliance of order dated 27-11-2007 but the respondeht proceeded to obtain forcible possession ofthe disputed land on 02-07-2008.Acomplaint was made to Police Station Gandai, District Rajnandgaon. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent is guilty of utter violation of interim order dated 14-01-2008 passed by this Court. 3. On the ofher hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that on 27-11-2007, the Executing Court had rejec{ed the objection of the petitioner and had directed possession to be handed over to the respondent whereafter the proceedings were drawn by the authorities in execution of the decree and on 04-12-2007, the possession of20 decimal of land situated in Khasra No.254/4 was handed over to the respondent. The said pFoceedings of handing over possession were drawn by the Court Officer and there were number of witnesses. He submits that the respondent had already obtained possession on 04-12-2007, and therefore, on the date of interim order passed by this Court, the possession was with the respondent. He submits that no contempt is therefore committed by the respondent. 4. Though, the petitioner submits that on the date of interim order passed by this Court on 14-01-2008,.the possession remained with the petitioner and that the respondent took possession on 02-07-2008, except this bald pleading, there is no other material placed by the petitioner nor any affidavit of any other person or any proceedings to show that the petitioner was in possession of the land on ^ • ^K^. ^swf^ •3, the date of passing of the interim order by this Court. Orderdated 30-06-2008 passed by theAdditional Tahsildar in mutation proceedings records that the respondent submitted before him that he has already been granted possession on 04-12-2007 and further that the Additional Tahsildar observed in theorderthat interim order was granted by this Court on 14-01-2008. However, there is nothing in the order to show thatany finding with regard to the status prevailing on 14-01-2008 was recorded by the Naib Tahsildar. The Naib Tahsildar in view of the interim order passed by this Court, did not accept the application for mutation of the respondent in so far as land comprised in Khasra No.254/4 is concerned, therefore, the said order does not show that the petitioner was in possession on 14-01-2008. 5. On the other hand, the respondent has made categorical averment in the reply that in execution of decree and order dated 27-11-2007, possession was delivered on 04-12-2007. The respondent has also placed on record the reply which was filed in first Appeal No.04 of 2008 wherein they have placed on record warrant of possession dated 30-11-2007 and also the proceedings of handing over of possession dated 04-12-2007. The document annexed along with the said application show that possession was delivered on 04-12-2007 and the report to that effect was submitted in the Court whereafter the Executing Court passed an order dated 17-12-2007 accepting the report of IVIachkuh and recording satisfaction of decree, closed the execution case. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out nor could bring any material before this Court to show that the aforesaid proceedings were challenged by him before any competent Court or any other order has been passed recording any finding of fact that possession was not handed over on 04-12-2007. -^ 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, 1 have to hold that the petitioner has failed to proveand establish that there is any willful disobedience ofthe order passed by this Court on 14-01-2008 in First Appeal No.04 of 2008. Rule is therefore discharged. 7. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Sd-T Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Tumane