1 2025:CGHC:18977 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 581 of 2025 1 - Nathuram Patel S/o Goverdhan Patel Aged About 74 Years R/o Village - Bhilai, Tahsil - Mungeli (Now Pathariya), District - Bilaspur (Now Mungeli), Chhattisgarh Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Sumitra Bai W/o Ganguram Aged About 50 Years R/o Vilage - Barala, Tah. - Mungeli, Distt. - Bilaspur (M.P.), (Now C.G.), (Since Died) Through Legal Heirs (Contemnors) 1.1 - (A) Genduram S/o Ganguram Aged About 52 Years R/o Village - Barala, Tahsil - Mungeli (Now Pathariya), District - Mungeli (C.G.) 1.2 - (B) Feduram S/o Ganguram Aged About 49 Years R/o Village - Barala, Tahsil - Mungeli (Now Pathariya), District - Mungeli (C.G.) 1.3 - (C) Kamal Prasad S/o Ganguram Aged About 46 Years R/o Village - Barala, Tahsil - Mungeli (Now Pathariya), District - Mungeli (C.G.) 1.4 - (D) Harnarayan S/o Ganguram Aged About 43 Years R/o Village - Barala, Tahsil - Mungeli (Now Pathariya), District - Mungeli (C.G.) 1.5 - (E) Ramnarayan S/o Ganguram Aged About 38 Years R/o Village - Barala, Tahsil - Mungeli (Now Pathariya), District - Mungeli (C.G.) 1.6 - (F) Laxmin D/o Ganguram Aged About 40 Years R/o Village - Barala, Tahsil - Mungeli (Now Pathariya), District - Mungeli (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Sushila Bai W/o Nirmal Prasad Aged About 41 Years R/o Village - Kasmonda, Tehsil - Janjgir, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Chandrakant Chandravanshi Naib Tahsildar, Pathariya, District - Mungeli (C.G.) Respondent(s) RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.04.29 10:22:00 +0530 2 (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. V.K. Sharma and Mr. Chandra Kumar, Advocate For Respondent : None (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 28/04/2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. This Contempt Petition has been preferred by the petitioner with the averments that despite of the judgment/decree passed by this Court on 20/08/2024 in Second Appeal No. 514/2000, the respondents have intentionally and willfully violated the said judgment/decree. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the Second Appeal No. 514/2000, this Court vide judgment/decree dated 20/08/2024 had declared the petitioner herein as joint owner of the suit land mentioned in Schedule ‘B’ & ‘C’ in the appeal and he was declared to get 1/3rd share of the suit land, however, the respondents after hatching the conspiracy and in order to grab the precious part of land at prime location, got executed ex-parte partition and obtained 3.2670 hectare of land by order dated 25/11/2024 in Revenue case No. 202324630230700004. The respondents have intentionally and willfully violated the judgment and decree dated 20/08/2024 passed in Second Appeal No. 514/2000 and thereby committed contempt of the order passed by this Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the judgment and decree dated 20/08/2024 passed in Second Appeal No. 514/2000. 5. From perusal of judgment and decree dated 20/08/2024, it is quite vivid 3 that the appellant/petitioner herein was declared to be the joint owner of the suit land. The judgment only says that the petitioner is entitled to get 1/3rd share of the suit land. 6. It is submission of the petitioner himself that the respondents, in order to grab the precious part of land at prime location, executed ex-parte partition, however, no where in the contempt petition, he has pleaded that he has not received 1/3rd share of the suit land in compliance of the judgment and decree dated 20/08/2024 passed in Second Appeal No. 514/2000. Had it been the case that the petitioner has been denied the share of the suit land, things would have definitely been different, but in the case in hand, the petitioner has no where pleaded in the petition that he has been denied to have the share in compliance of the judgment and decree dated 20/08/2024. If the petitioner is dissatisfied with the alleged ex-parte partition order, he may take appropriate recourse of law. Hence, in the considered opinion, this Court does not find any ground to entertain this Contempt Petition. 7. Accordingly, the Contempt Petition has no substance and the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Rahul