LCOURT OF CHHAITiSuARHl SILASPUR srsteiTsot Pstition {Civii'i Ho. 158 of 2007 Amit Kumar Sinah, aged 36 vears, s/o. Shr Prakssh SlpQh, f/o. Houss No.A-1 Shailendra Naaar, Raipur, CG. Versus (Contsmnors) 3) Kishore Bhsduri, aaed 40 vears. Advocate. High Court 3ar AssQciat'on; Bilaspur, CG. Ashok Soni, aged 30 vears, Advocate, High Court Bar Associatlon, Bliaspur, CG./ Satdya Prakash, aged 40 years, S./o. Shri Ram Prasad Jhunjhunwala, r/b. M.i.G., D-12, Shaiiendrs Nagsr; Raipur, C.G. 4) Pav.'an Jhunjhunwaia, aged 42 'ysars, s/o. Shri Ram Prasad Jhunjhunwala; r./o. M.l.G. D-12, Shaitendra Nagar, Raipur, CG. 5) Ram Prasad uhunjhunwaia, aged 67 years, s/o. Shr' Msitrsm. r/o. rvi. 1 .G. Q-12. Shaiterdra Naaar, Raipur, CG. S) P.S. Parihar, Recoverv Oftlcer, De&ts Recovery Tribunal, 797-11, Shanti Kunj, SouSh CSvi! 'Jnes, Jabalpur.M.P. 7) Bharat Kishore' Pradhan. Officer at the Rsa'onsi Brsnch ofths UrsiQn 3snk of indls. Mahavir Gau Shalla Complsx. Moudha para; Raipur, CG. 8) Vijav Galande, Advocate, Panch Shee! Coiony, near Saket Nagar, Badl ukhari Road, Jabaipur, M.P. Q^ -ss Ashok Banke, Advocate at the Debts Recovery Tribunal, S.hanti Kup.j, South Civii Lines. Jabalpur, M.P. 10) Neerai Vaahad, Advooate, at the Debts Re'covery Trlbunai, Shanti Kunj; South Civii Llnes. Jabaipur. M.P. ft'Vrit Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india) Present: Shri Bhishma Kinger, counsel for the petitioner. O/'s, ^->t^!-. Q^ys^l",! Ar^! !>-!C>A| fi-,!- -<->;-?-s-,*-!.^-s.n+ Mj-( '5^<^A^4.n»yii->, ilit' OUUsisiJI: Ucii'iUih, ^UU; iteci iUE ic'^UUnucs iL i^U.O.f\^U! SiTOfss jt;^ ^IIKii1^:^ srtr^-i'-i^1 -•z- (Passed on 22 .lanuary, 2008) This Court in Misceiianeous Appeai .No.857 of 2004 passed the interim )rder OR 13-8-2004 'A'hich 'is as under: "Having 'neard the learned counsel for the appeliant and havjng regard to the racts and clrcumstances of the case, respondents No. 4 and 5 are restained from taking any Dossession ofthe house in ciuestion untii further orders. on furnishing a solvent security of Rs.5,00,000/'- by the aDDe!!ani to the satisfacSion of the trlal Court wlthin two wee'ks from today." Thereafter, the appeal was dismisssd for want of prosecution on 2-3-2007. The petitioner preferred an application (M.C.C.No.139 of 2007) for restoration of appeai as weii as restoration ofthe interim order dated 13-8-2004. This Court having heard learned counsei for the parties ordered restoratiori of appsai to its original number and further restored the interim order dated 13-8-2004 passed in M.A.No.857 of 2004, till the next date of 'neanng. Despite the restoration 07 the interim order, the contemnsr/respondent No.3 proceeded to dispossess the petitioner and his family foroibiy. 2) Learned counsei appering for the petitioner submits that the respondent No,.3/Contemner dstiberateiv and Intentionaiiy violatedthe Court'sorder. in ihe meantime, rsspondent No.3 havino oome to know about the facts of the case that the interim order dated 13-8-2004 was restored on 18^-2007, resiored ths possession ofthe petiotioner. ._ •?.,;-- 3} Learnsd counsel appearing for the respondent No.37Contemner submits' that the ac-Uon of the respondent No.3 v/as neither deiiberate nor Intentional. Due to lack of communicStion of the order dated 18-4-2007. t'ne respondeni No.3 had taken steps for dispossessing the peiitioner. There are csrtain other submissions with raaard to.the communicatlon of the order by the counsei. 4) The contention of the Detitioner that the petitioner has suffered oredibility in the sociefry, the petitioner ought to hsve been compensated, cannot be examinsd in the appiication. So far as defamation ofthe petitloner is concerned, the pet'.tioner fe at libertv to take recourse m anv other aiternative remedv that may be avaiiabie to him in accordanos with !aw. The contempt has been puiqed. . However, in view of She fact that the respondent No.S/Contemner was not carefui 'A'hiie dispossessing the petitioner forcibiy in spite of ihe fact ihat the interim orderdated 13-8-2004 was restored on "lS-4-2007, ths resooncient No.3 iS directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as cost payabie to the petitioner within a penod of three weeks from mdav. • 5) Thus, notice is discharged and the petition is accordingiy disposed of. Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge