Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:82063-DB Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13904 of 2025 Petitioner :- Kaul Patti Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 12 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mannu Ram,Pankaj Kumar Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Arindam Sinha,J. Hon'ble Avnish Saxena,J. 1. Mr. Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, private respondents are obstructing his client from harvesting the wheat, standing crop on her land. She filed civil suit, in which there was order dated 19th August, 2011, of restraint. Respondent nos. 7 to 9 preferred appeal and obtained order dated 1st February, 2012 vacating the restraint order. His client came up in revision to this Court and a learned single Judge of this Court, by order dated 24th February, 2012, stayed operation of the appellate order. Subsequent thereto, unfortunately, the writ petition was dismissed in default but thereafter restored on order dated 8th April, 2025, whereby dismissal order dated 18th February, 2025 stood recalled. 2. Private respondents are continuing to obstruct petitioner, which is why this writ petition for direction upon the authorities to enable her to harvest the crop. Mr. Gupta seeks interference. 3. Mr. Ambrish Shukla, learned advocate, Additional Chief Standing Counsel appears on behalf of State and submits, it is a private dispute. 4. We have before us prima facie appreciation that petitioner was able to obtain stay of the appellate order, vacating the restraint injunction. The writ petition was dismissed on 18th February, 2025 but the order stands recalled by subsequent order dated 8th April, 2025. Recalling of the dismissal order means said order does not exist. As such the restraint order appears to operate. 5. An order passed by a competent Court is to be complied with. That is rule of law. Punishment for disobedience on violation of an order is in realm of contempt. Petitioner is seeking direction upon the administration for enforcing the order of restraint. 6. We are not inclined to direct issuance of notice on private respondents. Instead State respondents through respondent no.3 (the Sub-Divisional Magistrate) is directed to enforce the restraint injunction, unless private respondents or any of them are able to produce order of interference by a competent Court, against such restraint order. Petitioner will forthwith, on application made for obtaining certified copy, communicate website copy of this order to respondent no.3. 7. The writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 17.5.2025 Mohini (Arindam Sinha, J.) (Avnish Saxena, J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHINI RAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad