HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 5423 of 2025 Court No. - 37 HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and perused the record. 2. It has been submitted that the Civil Judge (Junior Division) is not deciding the suit in compliance of the order dated 28.5.2002 passed by the Additional District Judge in Civil Revision No. 52 of 2002. During the argument, learned counsel for the applicant has placed a photostat copy of the order dated September 19, 2025 passed by this Court in Matters Under Article 227 No. 11237 of 2025 (Mohammed Arif and 3 others vs. Shameem Ahmed and 9 others), which is taken on record. 3. A perusal of the order dated September 19, 2025 evince that the present applicant has filed the writ petition for the same grievance as mentioned in the instant contempt application. For ready reference, order dated September 19, 2025 is quoted herein below: "1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Sanjai Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and perused the record. 3. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that revisional court i.e. A.D.J. Court No. 4, Moradabad while deciding the civil revision no. 52 of 2002 issued directions to the trial court vide order dated 28.05.2002 that in case, the sale deed is not filed by the defendant in the suit then the court below will summon the same from the office of Registrar for comparing the signature of defendant no. 3. It has been further submitted that despite clear direction of the revisional court, the defendant no. 3 did not file the sale deed and the trial court has not made any effort for summoning the sale deed from the Registrar. Various applications including the present one, Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shachindra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Mohammed Arif And 3 Others .....Applicant(s) Shilpi Singh Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) .....Opposite Party(s) moved by the petitioner, has been rejected on one ground or another which is in total noncompliance of the order dated 28.05.2002. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the suit is one of the oldest in the court and therefore, the application of the petitioner was rightly rejected but could not deny that despite the direction given by the revisional court, the sale deed was not summoned by the trial court from the office of Registrar. 5. Matter requires consideration. 6. Shri Sanjai Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appears for respondent no. 2. 7. Issue notice to the respondent nos. 1/1 to 1/9. Steps be taken within a week. 8. List on the date fixed in the notice along with service report. 9. In the meantime, the parties may exchange their affidavits. 10. Till the next date of listing, further proceedings of O.S. No. 40 of 1987, shall remain stayed." 4. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants and the perusal of record, no contempt is made out against the Judicial Officer concerned. 5. Accordingly, instant contempt application is dismissed. October 8, 2025 vinay CAPL No. 5423 of 2025 2 (Dinesh Pathak,J.) Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad