1 2025:CGHC:9464 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CONT No. 99 of 2025 Vishal Kumar Gupta S/o Late Mathura Sao Aged About 40 Years By Caste - Sudi, R/o Village - Bhedmi (Pusura), P.S. And Tahsil - Balrampur, Distt. Balrampur- Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus Dwarika Prasad Gupta S/o Late Jagat Sao Aged About 65 Years By Caste - Sudi, R/o Village - Dahejvar, P.S. and Tahsil - Balrampur, Distt. Balrampur- Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent ___________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Pathak, Advocate For Respondents : Ms. Akanksha Vishwakarma, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate ___________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 24/02/2025 1. The present contempt case is being preferred by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for non compliance of Court’s order dated 20.04.2023 passed in CrMP No.856/2023. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in-spite of clear order of this Court, the contemnor/respondent has interned in premises of the 2 petitioner and trying to disposes forcefully from his land and the respondent also threatened to kill the petitioner, respondent any time come in the petitioner’s land and abuses the petitioner an his family by using filthy languages, thereafter he made several complaint against the illegal act of the respondent before the Tahsildar, Balrampur, Superintendent of Police Balrampur and SHO, Balrampur, but till date no action has been taken by them and in spite of the interim order passed this Court, he committing the contempt of order of the Court. It is therefore prayed that, the petition may kindly be allowed and the proceeding for committing the contempt of order of the Court may kindly be initiated against the respondent/contemnor. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the respondent has never interned in premises of the petitioner and also never trying to disposes forcefully from his land as allegation made by the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 5. Considering the facts of the case and the order passed by the learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 20.04.2023 in CrMP No.856/2023 in which it was directed that the effect and operation of the notice dated 19.04.2023 shall remain stayed till disposal of this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner admitted the fact that the Revenue Authorities has issued the notice dated 19.04.2023 and the Revenue Authorities did not tried to dispossess the petitioner from the possession of the property, therefore, it is not a case of contempt. 3 6. In view of the above, no deliberate contempt is made out as the order passed by this Court against the respondent. 7. Accordingly, the present contempt case is rejected and is disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant VASANT KUMAR Digitally signed by VASANT KUMAR Date: 2025.02.28 11:10:28 +0530