HIGH COURT OF CHHA’I‘TISGARH BILASPUR ”X CONTEMPT PETITION No. 169 of 2008 APPLICANT Smt. Shyama Bai W/o Jagdish Prasad Sahu, Caste Teh', aged about 46 years, Occupation Housewife, R/ 0 Amapara, Kanker (0G). Kanker, Tahsil 85 Distt. Vs. l. Rajendra Kumar Sahu, s/o Uday Ram Sahu, Caste Teli, Proprietor Bhagwati Kanker, Engineering RS. 8r, Workshop, Tahsil, Distt. Albelapara, Kanker 2. Alok Thakur, S/o Shri C.K. Thakur, R/o Jajsakarra, Tehsil-Charama, Distt. Kanker (CG). Chhattisgarh Ku. Gayatri Gande, Electricity Junior Engineer, Board, w Kanker, District Kanker (CG). ME‘ CONTEMPT CONTEMPT OF PETITION COURTS ACT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE Apnearance: Mr Mr. Parag D.N. Prajapati, Kotecha, counsel counsel for for the respondent petitioner. no. 1. ORAL ORDER (05.02.2010) M SUNIL KUMAR SINHA J Heard. This Court while admitting the F.A.No.115/O7 01’1 26.09.2007 passed the following orders: Cont. Pet No. 169/2008 /m “26.09.2007 counsel Shri for BVL. the appaellant. Dembra with Shri M. Tarek Haider, Heard on admission. Admit. A130 heard on I.A.No.1 for grant of stay. within Issue 6 weeks. notice to the respondent, returnable Steps within a week. interim stay. Learned counsel for the appellant prays for ad— It is ordered that the effect and operation of the impugned judgment and decree dated 238.2007 in passed Civil by Suit the No.2~A/2006 District Judge, shall Nodrth remain Bastar, stayed Kanker, till the next date of hearing Let record of the lower Court be called and the matter be listed thereafter in the 7th week. Certified Copy as per rules.” It appears that respondent no.1 had filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement which Was decreed by the Court of District Judge by judgment and decree dated 23.08.2007 and it was directed that after receiving certain amount as per the terms of the decree, the defendant/petitioner herein shall execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff (respondent no.1 herein). Against the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the District Judge in Civil Suit No.2-A/2006, the defendant/petitioner herein filed the First Appeal and in the said appeal the aforesaid interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner. Mr. D.N. Prajapati, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that even after passing of the aforesaid order in favour of the petitioner, respondent no.1 executed an agreement (Annexure—C/2) and has rent out the premises theirby creating third party interest in the said property which amounts to violation of the said order. In the opinion of this Court, such action taken by respondent noil would not amount to violation of the order dated Kx—W’ x w mm» vxwvx\w‘Wmmw Zg/ Cont. Pet No. 169/2008 26.9.2007 passed in the First Appeal, as by the said order, only the effect and operation of the impugned judgment and decree has been stgayed that is to say that the execution of the sale deed in question, which has been directed by the District Judge, has been stayed by this Court and nothing—else. In View of the above, I do not find any good ground to proceed further in the matter for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents. The petition has no merits. The same is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. ed] Simil Kilm-ar Sinha Judge Kan