HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 6510 of 2026 Court No. - 53 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. The present contempt application has been preferred alleging willful defiance of the order dated 07.05.2025 passed in Writ-B No. 1761 of 2025, order whereof is quoted hereinunder.- "A perusal of the impugned judgement passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court show that prima facie the legatee under the Will of the late Baledeen being not related by blood to the testator, the important question whether the Will was proved after removal of all suspicious circumstances surrounding it, was not at all examined. Also, the Will does not seem to have been proved by unequivocal evidence of the marginal witnesses. The Commissioner, who heard the First Appeal, has written prima facie a mechanically worded judgment, perfunctorily affirming the Trial Court. The Board of Revenue did not consider the mode of the proof of the Will or the legatee's burden to prove the Will by explaining away all suspicious circumstances given the fact that the Will was executed derogating from the interest of blood relatives in favour of a stranger. A prima facie case is made out. Admit. Issue notice. Notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 4 is accepted by Mr. Girijesh Kumar Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and that on behalf of respondent no. 5 by Mr. Azad Rai, Advocate. Both the learned counsel for the respondents are granted two weeks time to file a counter affidavit. Steps to serve respondent nos. 6 and 7 shall be taken by RPAD within three days. List for orders on 21.05.2025 along with a report regarding service and the postal track attached. The office shall also put in a report regarding Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anuruddh Chaturvedi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Shankar Lal .....Applicant(s) Indrajeet Singh And 7 Others .....Opposite Party(s) status of pleadings. Order on Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 1 of 2025 Issue notice. There shall be an ad interim stay of operation of the decree dated 12.09.2024 passed by the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Prayagraj and the judgement of the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Faizabad Division, Faizabad rendered in appeal as well as the Trial Court's judgement dated 30.04.2001 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sultanpur, District Sultanpur. It is further ordered that status quo shall be maintained by both parties regarding possession, nature and character of the suit property, also until further orders. Let this order be communicated to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sultanpur, District Sultanpur through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur by the Registrar (Compliance) within 24 hours." 2. The applicant happens to be the respondent no. 6 in Writ-B No. 1761 of 2025 and so far as the opposite parties are concerned, in particular, opposite party no. 8, he happens to be the petitioner in the said writ petition 1/1. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that though the applicant happened to be the respondent in the said writ petition and the orders dated 12.09.2024 passed by Board of Revenue, Prayagraj and the judgment of the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Faizabad Division, Faizabad, rendered in appeal as well as the trial court judgment dated 30.04.2001 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sultanpur, District Sulthanpur was stayed and status quo was directed to be maintained by both the parties regarding possession, nature and the character of the suit property until further orders but in view of the report which is annexed as Annexure- 7 at page 60 relevant extract at page 61, the applicant was ploughing and harvesting the agricultural land prior to passing of the order of the writ court. Thus, the order of status quo would not come in the way of the applicant in ploughing the field. 3. In the opinion of the Court, the judgment and order which were passed in favour of the applicant was stayed and status quo was directed to be maintained with respect to possession, nature and character of the suit property. This Court deems it appropriate that the applicant may move an appropriate clarification/modification application in the pending writ petition in that regard. 4. Prima facie, there is no willful defiance. CAPL No. 6510 of 2026 2 5. Accordingly, the present contempt application is consigned to record leaving it open for the applicant to move an appropriate application as permissible and advisable under law. 6. Any observations made in the present order are only confined to the present contempt application and the orders to be passed, if any application is preferred by the applicant shall not be governed by the same. September 18, 2026 Rajesh CAPL No. 6510 of 2026 3 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad