1 2025:CGHC:3065 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 1309 of 2024 1 - Mahesh Kumar S/o Late Shesh Narayan Vaishnav, Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Birhanpur Khurd, Tehsil Gandai, District- Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan- Gandai (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - Renuka Ratre Posted As Sub- Divisional Magistrate Gandai- Chhuikhadan District- Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan- Gandai ( C.G.). 2 - Shri Indra Ram Chandravanshi Presently Working As Naib Tahsildar, Court Of Naib Tahsildar, Tahsil Gandai, District- Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan- Gandai ( C.G.). 3 - Shri Bansa Ram Padaudi Presently Working As Patwari, Village Biranpur Khurd, Tahsil Gandai, District- Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan- Gandai (C.G.). 4 - Bheemsen Yadav Posted As Thana In- Charge, Police Station Gandai District- Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan- Gandai ( C.G.). ... Respondents (Cause title, as taken from CIS) For Applicant : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 4 For Respondents No.2 & 3 : : Mr. Venketesh Pandey, Advocate Mr. Syed Afaque Hussain Rizvi, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Order on Board 17/01/2025 1. Heard. 2. This Contempt petition has been preferred by applicant under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 12 of the Contempt of 2 Courts Act, 1971 for non-compliance of the order dated 14.6.2024 (Annexure-C/1) passed in WP(227) No.469/2024. 3. Vide order dated 14.6.2024, this Court has passed following order:- “Considering the entire fact situation of the case, purely as an interim measure, it is directed that the effect and operation of the compromise decree dated 17.2.2023 passed in Civil Suit No.15A/2023 shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.” 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that despite staying the effect and operation of compromise decree, respondent No.4 filed Istagasa No.01/2024 before the respondent No.1, who is Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Gandai-Chhuikkhadan, District Khairagarh- Chhuikkhadan-Gandai (CG). He would further submit that since civil dispute is pending, therefore, respondents No.1 & 4 ought not have filed Istagasa and entertained the same. 5. In reply, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 & 4 would submit that on 01.9.2024, there was a property dispute between applicant and his four brothers namely; Rishi Kumar Vaishnav, Shiv Kumar Vaishnav, Krishna Kumar Vaishnav and Ganesh Das Vaishnav. There was quarrel among them, therefore, issue of law and order creates. Considering the possibility of breach of peace and tranquility, respondents No.4 filed Istagasa before respondent No.1, therefore, on 11.11.2024, respondent No.1 appointed receiver to protect the cultivated crop over the disputed land. He further submitted that the said proceeding is still pending. 3 6. Having considered the aforesaid facts as projected by counsel for both the parties, though effect and operation of compromise decree has been stayed by this Court vide order dated 14.6.2024, but when specific question was posed to counsel for the applicant that, whether said Civil Suit No.15A//2023 has been restored or not, he submitted that it has not been restored. Since there was quarrel between applicant and his brothers in respect of land and crop was standing there, therefore, in order to protect peace and tranquility, said Istagasa was filed by respondent No.4 before respondent No.1. 7. In view of aforesaid fact, it cannot be said that respondents have willfully disobeyed the order dated 14.6.2024 passed by this Court, as such, no case of contempt is made out against the respondents. 8. Accordingly, the rule issued to respondents is discharged and contempt proceeding is dropped. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Rukhsar RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2025.01.17 17:40:50 +0530