RUDRA NARAIN @ RUDRA NARAIN SINGH v. SATYENDRA KUMAR (I.A.S.) DISTT. MAGISTRATE, BARABANKI AND OTHERS
CAPL/2256/2025 · 2025-11-13
Manish Kumar
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 180971 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 180971 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2256 of 2025 Court No. - 8 HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.
1. The present contempt application has been preferred against alleged non-compliance of judgment and order dated 7.3.2005 passed in Writ B No.197 of 2005, which is quoted hereinbelow:
"Till the date of next listing status quo as it exists today with regard to possession in respect of the property in question shall be maintained by the parties"
2. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that despite the interim order passed in the writ petition, the Respondent no.9 has executed two sale deeds on 4.6.2025 and 23.07.2025, hence, the respondents are liable to be punished for willful disobedience of interim order passed by the writ Court.
3. On being asked from the learned counsel for the applicant to show that when the interim order was extended after 3.7.2005, he has provided copy of orders dated 27.11.2015 and 14.12.2016, in which interim order has not been extended. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that after 14.12.2016 the case was listed on 8.2.2021, on that date it was dismissed for want of prosecution.
4. It is further submitted that the writ was restored on 23.11.2023 but the interim order passed on 7.3.2005 was not extended as per order produced Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajesh Kumar Singh, Mratunjay Singh, Neetu Patel Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :
Rudra Narain @ Rudra Narain Singh .....Applicant(s) Satyendra Kumar (I.A.S.) Distt. Magistrate, Barabanki And Others .....Opposite Party(s)
by the learned counsel for the applicant since 27.11.2015 and thereafter it was never extended. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is found that in absence of any interim order, it could not be said that the Respondent No.9 has willfully and intentionally disobeyed the order passed by the writ court. The contempt application is devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed.
5. The notice, if any, issued against the respondent stands discharged. November 13, 2025 S. Kumar CAPL No. 2256 of 2025 2 (Manish Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- SANTOSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench