Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 202913 (ALL)

MRITYUNJAY YADAV v. PURENEDU MISHRA SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE TEHSIL PATTI DISTT. PRATAPGARH AND 2 OTHERS

CAPL/3425/2025 · 2025-10-28

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. - 3425 of 2025 Court No. - 8 HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J. Heard. The present contempt application has been preferred alleging therein that the judgement and order dated 12.05.2025 passed in Matters under Article 227 No. 2787 of 2025 has not been complied with. The relevant part of the judgment and order dated 17.04.2025 is being reproduced hereinbelow:- "Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the period of pendency of the restoration application in issue, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.2/Sub Divisional Magsitrate, Tehsil- Patti, District- Pratapgarh to consider and decide restoration application pending in the case, indicated in prayer clause of this petition, quoted above, 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 two months from the next date fixed in the case, if there is no other legal impediment in this regard. " From perusal of the order sheets enclosed collectively Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashutosh Mishra, Vijay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Mrityunjay Yadav .....Applicant(s) Purenedu Mishra Sub Divisional Magistrate Tehsil Patti Distt. Pratapgarh And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) with the present petition as Annexure no. 3, it reveals that after service of the judgment and order of the Writ Court on 20.05.2025, the case was fixed on 12 dates between 22.05.2025 till 26.09.2025, out of which on ten dates, lawyers were abstaining from judicial work. So it cannot be said that the respondent is willfully or intentionally disobeying the judgment and order passed by the Writ Court. In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove, no case of wilful disobedience of the judgment and order of the Writ Court is made out against the Officer. For the foregoing reasons, the present contempt petition is hereby dismissed. October 28, 2025 Ashish CAPL No. 3425 of 2025 2 (Manish Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench