HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2857 of 2025 Court No. - 4 HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J. 1. Heard. 2. Instant contempt application has been filed alleging non compliance of the judgment and order dated 05.09.2024 passed in Writ-C No. 6629 of 2024 Inre; Renu Tiwari and Ors Vs. Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow Mandal, Lucknow and Ors. 3. By the said order, the writ Court had allowed the petition, set aside the order impugned dated 16.08.2022 as well as the order passed by the revisional Court dated 29.06.2024, the matter was restored on the board of the Sub Divisional Officer, Malihabad, Lucknow who was directed to accord full opportunity of hearing to the parties and without granting any unnecessary adjournment decide the matter afresh keeping in view the observations made by the Court including the provisions of CPC. 4. Contempt application has been filed alleging that although the Sub Divisional Officer has passed an order on 08.07.2025, a copy of which is annexure 8 to the writ petition yet (a) he has failed to frame the issues considering paragraph 17-A of the written statement in respect of family settlement (b) has failed to frame the issue prior to passing the order dated 08.07.2025 as per Order 14 Rule 1 of the CPC (c) has failed to follow the provisions of Order 16 Rule 5 of the CPC (d) has not taken any evidence Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Hairdaya Narain Tiwari, Ankit Kumar Pandey, Atul Tiwari, Hari Mangal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Rita Pathak .....Applicant(s) Kshipra Pal Sub Divisional Magistrate Judicial Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) after framing of issues and (e) the preliminary decree which has been set aside by this Court has been treated to be valid and legal. 5. Once an order has been passed by the competent authority in pursuance to the order passed by the High Court, the said order cannot be scrutinized by the contempt Court rather it is always open for the aggrieved party to raise a challenge to the aforesaid order before the competent Court in appropriate proceedings. Merely because the appropriate authority has passed an order which is not to the liking of the petitioner, the same would not give rise to any contempt having been committed by the competent authority. 6. In this regard, it would be apt to refer to the recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Pravesh Vs. Malti Balika Vidyalaya and anr passed in Special Leave to Petition No. 21857 of 2025 decided on 08.08.2025 wherein the Apex Court has held as under:- "7) We make it clear that in contempt proceedings before the High Court, the jurisdiction of the Court is confined to the extent of nature of directions issued and their compliance. The High Court in the contempt proceedings cannot expand its jurisdiction to examine the justification or validity of the compliance as made until a glaring departure from the directions is ex-facie discernable." 7. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion as well as the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Pravesh (supra), the instant contempt application is rejected. September 19, 2025 Pachhere/- CAPL No. 2857 of 2025 2 (Abdul Moin,J.) Digitally signed by :- SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench