1 The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full -- -- -- 08.12.2025 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 1173 of 2022  Smt. Seema, d/o Late Jogiram Agrawal, aged about 42 years, R/o Badibazar, Taratnpur, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus  Pramod Kumar Agrawal, S/o Late Jogiram Agrawal, aged about 52 years, R/o Badibazar, Ratanpur, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Ms. Anusha Naik, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Akash Pandey, Advocate Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board 08/12/2025 1. The petitioner has preferred this contempt petition against 2 respondent for not complying with the order dated 26.02.2020 passed in WP(227) No.1009/2018. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that by order dated 26.02.2020, this Court directed to maintain status quo as it is present today til the case is decided by the Trial Court, and by virtue of the said order, the petitioner is in peaceful possession of the property but the respondent is starting construction over the suit property and also damaging the superstructure of the suit property. She further submits that the owing to the act of the contemnor, the petitioner filed a complaint before the Superintendent of Police and other higher authority. Learned counsel also submits that the respondent is trying to dispossess the petitioner by creating nuisance like throwing garbage in her premises and breaking up her house’s roof tiles (khaprel) and by other illegal means. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent denied the averments made by the petitioner and submits that no such activity and nuisance has been created by the respondent and in the police complaint also, the police did not find such allegation to be proved. Learned counsel placing reliance on the decision of Allahabad High Court in the matter of Vishnu Kant Vs. Narendra Gupta and 4 Ors. [Neutral Citation No. 2020:AHC:2507] submits that for any violation of Order XXXIX Rule 1-A of CPC, the appropriate remedy would be under the provision of Rule 2-A Order XXXIX of the CPC before the learned Trial Court. Since, 3 there is no violation of Order XXXIX Rule 1-A CPC and the petitioner has already invoked the jurisdiction of said provision, therefore appropriate remedy would be Rule 2-A of Order XXXIX of the CPC. As such, the instant contempt petition being without any substance is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. The Allahabad High Court in the matter of Vishnu Kant (supra) referring the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Food Corporation of India Vs. sukh Deo Prasad 2009 (3) SC 2330 and Kanwar Singh Saini V. High Court of Delhi, (2012) 4 SCC 307 held as under :- “A perusal of the facts of the case in hand goes to show that the applicant has already invoked the jurisdiction of the trial court by making an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A C.P.C. alleging breach of temporary injunction which is pending. The dispute requires a detailed inquiry with regard to allegation having made construction forcibly on the suit land in violation of the temporary injunction which can be gone into more effectively and properly under the provision of Rule 2-A Order XXXIX of the C.P.C.” 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and following the decision in Vishnu Kant (supra), in the case in hand also, prima- facie there appears no violation of Order Order XXXIX Rule 2-A C.P.C, and the learned counsel for the petitioner did not satisfy 4 this Court that the respondent, in any manner, violated the order passed by this Court and only raised allegation that the respondent is creating nuisance by throwing garbage and breaking roof tiles of the suit land, which does not come under the purview of contempt in this case. 7. In view of the aforesaid, the contempt petition is disposed of reserving the liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent Court under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge pekde Digitally signed by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE Date: 2025.12.08 17:23:54 +0530