Court No. - 4 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2392 of 2025 Applicant :- Smt. Shyama Devi And Another Opposite Party :- Mr. Manish Kumar Tehsildar Judicial Tehsil Gonda Sadar Distt. Gonda Counsel for Applicant :- Aviral Srivastava,Dadu Ram Shukla (D.R. Shukla ) Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J. 1. In pursuance of the order of this Court, Shri Manish Kumar, Tehsildar, Gonda Sadar is present before this Court. 2. Heard. 3. Instant application has been filed under Section 16 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India. 4. It is alleged that the learned Tehsildar while passing the order dated 02.06.2025, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the application, which is an order passed under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 has failed to consider the provisions of Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908, judgments of this Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court which deal with the aforesaid situation and consequently the Tehsildar while passing the said order has committed contempt. 5. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the judgments of this Court in the cases of Kanti Devi vs Sarju Prasad & Ors : 1997 AIHC 4042 and Babu vs State : 1978 ALJ 145 as well as judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sukhdev Singh Sodhi vs Hon'ble Chief Justice : (1953) 2 SCC 571. 6. Specific query being put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether simply because an order passed by the competent court of law has ignored certain judgments or certain provisions which were cited before it, whether it can be said that a contempt has been committed ? 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been unable to produce any case law having direct bearing on this case rather has placed reliance on the aforesaid three judgments. 8. All the aforesaid three judgments have no applicability to the questions as has been raised to the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. The case of Kanti Devi (supra) was a matter in which the petitioner landlady had filed an eviction petition under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings Act against the tenant Shri Sarju Prasad, which was decreed and an appeal filed by Shri Sarju Prasad under Section 22 of the Act was rejected. Writ petition filed by Shri Sarju Prasad was also dismissed by this court on 16.01.1987. When the writ petition was being dismissed Shri Sarju Prasad gave an undertaking that he will vacate the premises in 3 months time. 9.1. However, instead of Shri Sarju Prasad vacating the premises he instigated his brother Radhey Lal to file an injunction suit. The temporary injunction application for the said suit was rejected. 9.2. Upon an appeal being filed by the brother of Shri Sarju Prasad namely Shri Radhey Lal the same was allowed by Shri T.N. Mishra the then Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur Nagar which judgment was challenged in the writ petition. 9.3. The writ court, considering that the judgment passed by Shri T.N. Mishra was against the final judgment passed by it in the case of Shri Sarju Prasad dated 16.01.1987 and the undertaking given by Shri Sarju Prasad, was of the view that Shri T.N. Mishra, the II Additional Civil Judge Kanpur Nagar had passed an order in defiance of the judgment of this Court in the writ petition decided on 16.01.1987 and thus action was to be taken against him. 9.4. The observation of action to be taken against the learned Judge was not made in a contempt petition rather was made in the writ petition whereby the order passed in another case was challenged before the writ court. Thus, the said judgment would have no applicability to the instant case. 10. So far as judgment in the case of Babu (supra) is concerned, observations have been made by this Court that the Sessions Judges are expected to follow the ruling of court and not to side track it by reading upon a decision of the case which was on the old Criminal Procedure Code. Again in the case of Babu (supra), this Court was not of the view that the contempt proceedings are to be initiated in case judicial officers have not considered certain judgments as passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 11. So far as judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sukhdev Singh Sodhi (supra) is concerned, the same does not deal with the question in hand. 12. Even otherwise, once a judicial order has been passed, it is always open for the aggrieved party to challenge the same before the appropriate court in appropriate proceedings but it cannot be said that merely because certain judgments which were cited before it have not been considered, there would be contempt is patently fallacious. 13. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the contempt application is dismissed. Order Date :- 20.8.2025 prateek Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench