1 2026:CGHC:22408 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 262 of 2021 1 - Arvind Vishwas S/o Late Narayan Vishwas Aged About 57 Years R/o Village P.V.- 116, Naya Bazar Pakhanjur, Tahsil Pakhanjur, District North Bastar- Kanker, Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - Aseem Saha S/o Late Adhir Saha Aged About 53 Years R/o Village P.V.-116, Naya Bazar Pakhanjur, Tahsil- Pakhanjur, District- North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Shyamali Sardar W/o Late Deenbandhu Sardar Aged About 45 Years R/o Village P.V.-116, Naya Bazar Pakhanjur, Tahsil Pakhanjur, District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 3 - Shriniwas Rai S/o Subhash Rai Aged About 32 Years R/o Village P.V.-34, Premnagar, Tahsil- Pakhanjur, District- North Bastar, Kanker, Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 4 - Kakan Mandal S/o Kalidas Mandal Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Basant Nagar, Bhanupratappur, Tahsil- Bhanupratpur, District- North Bastar, Kanker, Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 5 - Shri A.K. Pusam, Sub Registrar, Pakhanjur, Tahsil Office, Pakhanjur, District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh, At Present Posed As Tahsildar Gunderdehi, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 6 - Shri Sharad Dubey Station House Officer, Police Station Pakhanjur, District North Bastar, Kanker, Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 2 ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 4 : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 12/05/2026 1. This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 r/w. Article 215 of the Constitution of India alleging willful disobedience and non-compliance of the order dated 27.03.2018 passed by this Court in S.A. No. 28/2018. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that challenging the judgement and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court, the petitioner has preferred Second Appeal and have also filed an application under Order 41 Rule 5 r/w. Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. 3. On the submission of counsel for the petitioner that the Second Appellate Court passed an order granting him the interim protection of maintaining status quo till the next date of hearing, which is continuing till date; Learned counsel for the Respondents No. 1 to 4 would submit that the contempt petition is filed alleging that the Respondents No. 1 & 2 have sold the property subject matter of second appeal to the Respondents No. 3 & 4 even after passing of interim order dated 27.03.2018. He contended that the order of status quo is passed considering the prayer of the petitioner herein that the petitioner/appellant in second appeal was in possession of the suit property. There is no order of stay of the judgment and decree or there is no specific order issuing direction to the respondents therein not to alienate the property subject matter of dispute and therefore, no contempt would be made out. 4. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 6 would also submit that he is 3 not party to the Second Appeal. The order is passed in favour of the appellant and against the respondents therein of status quo based on the complaint made by the petitioner herein that its suit property has been alienated after passing of the interim order. The respondent has only proceeded under Section 155 mentioning that the complaint made prima facie appears to be a civil dispute between the parties. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the documents placed on record. 6. Annexure P/1 is an order dated 27.03.2018 by which, the Second Appellate Court has directed both the parties be maintain status quo till the next date of hearing. Copy of the application filed under Order 41 Rule 5 along with the memo of appeal though not filed along with the contempt petition, however, it is placed by the counsel for the Respondent No. 1 to 4 before this Court for perusal. The relevant portion of the paragraph of application filed under Order 41 Rule 5 r/w. Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC, 1908 is extracted below for ready reference:- 4. That, the appellant is in possession over the suit land and therefore the prima facie case, balance of convenience are in favour of appellant and if the temporary injunction is not granted in favour of the appellant, then he will suffer irreparable loss and injury; 6. That, in of facts and grounds raised in memo of appeal, it will be in the ends of justice to stay the effect and execution of the impugned judgment and decree passed by he learned lower appellate court and further be pleased to restrain the Respondent No. 1 to 3 from interfering in the peaceful possession of appellant over suit land. PRAYER It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the effect and execution of the impugned judgment and decree dated 05.12.2017 passed by the learned lower appellate court and further be pleased to restrain the Respondent No. 1 to 3 from interfering in the peaceful possession of appellant over suit land, till the final disposal of this appeal, in the interest of justice.” 7. Perusal of Para 4 of the application would show that the petitioner has 4 pleaded that the petitioner is in possession of the suit property and prima facie case lies in their favour and further submitted that if temporary injunction is not granted, it will cost irreparable loss. In prayer clause, the appellant therein prayed for restraining the Respondent No. 3 from interfering in the peaceful possession of appellant of the aforesaid land and have also prayed for the stay of effect and the execution of the impugned judgement. 8. In the application, there is no pleading that the Respondent therein are intending to alienate the property and the prayer that the respondents be restrained to alienate the suit property. Considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, pleadings made in the application and the interim order passed, in the opinion of this Court, petitioner failed to make out the case of willful disobedience on the part of the Respondents No. 1 & 2 of the order dated 27.03.2018 (Annexure P/1). 9. Accordingly, the contempt proceedings initiated against the respondents is dropped. Contempt petition is closed. 10.Notices issued to the respondents stands discharged. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY