1 / 2 2025:CGHC:4925-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA No. 1 of 2025 Smt. E. Kasturi W/o Late Shri E. Ashok Rao Aged About 76 Years R/o Narmada Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - E. Ramendra Rao S/o Late E. Nageshwara Raod R/o Bungalow No. 5, Green Park Colony, Jarhabhatha, Raipur Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2 - Satyanarayan Rathore Registrar, Firms And Socities, Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhawan, Block-1, 3rd Floor, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Presently Posted As Commissioner, Durg Division, District Durg Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Anil S. Pandey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 28/01/2025 1. The present miscellaneous appeal has filed by the appellant under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 aggrieved by the order Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN 2 / 2 dated 21.10.2024, passed by learned Single Judge in Contempt Case (Civil) No. 309/2023, whereby the said contempt case of the appellant has been disposed of granting liberty to avail remedy against breach of injunction as provided under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC. Learned Single Judge also observed in the order that the said case was filed after lapse of one year, which is not maintainable in view of the order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of S. Tirupathi Rao v. M. Lingamaiah & others, MANU/SC/0727/2024. The appellant has filed the present appeal with the following prayer: “a) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 21.10.2024. (b) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to remand the Contempt Case No. 309/2023 before the Hon'ble Single Bench for deciding the same on its own merits. (c) Any other relief (s) which deemed fit in favour of appellant may kindly be ordered, in the interest of justice.” 2. Perusal of record of the case also reveals that the Registry has pointed out a default in filing of the present appeal with respect to maintainability of the present Miscellaneous Appeal. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that he wishes to withdraw the present appeal with the liberty to take recourse to law before the appropriate forum with respect to the impugned order. 4. Accordingly, the present Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved