Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 201494 (ALL)

VINAY KUMAR TIWARI v. DINESH KUMAR, TEHSILDAR, TEHSIL BIKAPUR DISTT. AYODHYA

/3269/2025 · 2025-10-14

Manish Kumar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 3269 of 2025 Court No. - 8 HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J. The present contempt application has been preferred for alleged non compliance of the judgment and order dated 21.05.2025 passed in MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. 3050 of 2025. The relevant extract of the same is quoted hereinbelow:- "In view of above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.1/Tehsildar, Tehsil-Bikapur, District-Ayodhya to consider and decide the Case No. 2449/2024, Computerized Case No.T202404230302449 (Vinay Tiwari & others Vs. Bhanmati) most expeditiously after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties to the litigation and without granting unnecessary adjournment to either party preferably within a period of three months from the next date fixed in the case, if there is no other legal impediment in this regard." Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the order of this Court was filed on 03.06.2025 but till date the matter has not been decided and it is still pending. The period of three month has already expired in the month of September, 2025. Hence, the contempt is made out and the respondent is liable to be punished for committing contempt. After hearing learned counsel for the applicant and going through Annexure no. 3 i.e. the typed copy of the order sheets since 03.06.2025 till 23.08.2025, it is found that in between, the matter was fixed for 14 dates out of which on 11 dates, the lawyers were abstaining from work, so the non compliance of direction passed by the writ Court is not attributable to the respondent. The delay was not due to unnecessary adjournments granted by the respondent but it was due to the lawyers who were abstaining from work. In view of the facts and discussions made herein-above, the present contempt application is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Notice, if any, stands discharged. October 14, 2025 Nitesh Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Bipin Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : (Manish Kumar,J.) Vinay Kumar Tiwari .....Applicant(s) Dinesh Kumar, Tehsildar, Tehsil Bikapur Distt. Ayodhya .....Opposite Party(s) Digitally signed by :- NITESH KUMAR TEWARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench