Allahabad High Court Judgement

Allahabad High Court Judgement

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice at mail@myadvocates.club
JUDGEMENT HEADLINE : Contempt Petn.-filedin Sept.1995-No Order For Issuance Of Notice To O.ps.-Contempt Petn.dismissed As Infructuous.
JUDGEMENT TITLE : Mahadeo Ram And Others Vs. Sri Nagendra Rai, Secretary Distt. Sahkari Fed. And Others. On 07/02/2005 By Allahabad High Court
CASE NO : CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO. 1310 OF 1995
CORAM : Hon'ble Satya Poot Mehrotra,J.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Court No. 48


Civil Misc. Contempt Petition No. 1310 Of 1995

Sri Mahadeo Ram And Others .................Applicants

Versus
Sri Nagendra Rai And Others .................Respondents

*********

Hon'ble S. P.Mehrotra, J.

Cause List Has Been Revised.

Sri Vinod Kumar Srivastava, Learned Counsel For The Petitioners-applicants Is Not Present.

The Present Contempt Petition Purporting To Be Under The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971 Has Been Filed By The Petitioners-applicants, Inter-alia, Praying For Punishing The Opposite Parties For Having Committed Contempt Of This Court By Allegedly Flouting The Directions Given In The Order Dated 22nd June, 1995 Passed In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16636 Of 1995.

The Contempt Petition Was Filed On 5th September, 1995.

By The Order Dated 6th September, 1995, The Contempt Petition Was Directed To Be Listed In The Week Commencing 30th October, 1995.The Said Order Dated 6th September, 1995 Is As Follows :

"List In The Week Commencing 30th October, 1995."

Pursuant To The Said Order Dated 6th September, 1995, The Contempt Petition Was Put Up Before The Court On 2nd November, 1995. On The Said Date, I.e. 2nd November, 1995, The Court Directed The Contempt Petition To Be Listed In The Next Cause List.

From The Office Report Dated 4-1-1996/ 25-4-1997/ 24-11-2004, It Appears That The Case Was Listed On A Few Dates After 2-11-1995. However, No Order Appears To Have Been Passed On The Said Dates.

On 25th November 2004, The Contempt Petition Was Listed Before The Court. On The Said Date, I.e. 25th November 2004, The Court Passed Over The Case, And Directed The Same To Be Listed In The Next Cause List. The Said Order Dated 25th November 2004 Is Reproduced Below :

"List Has Been Revised. None Is Present On Behalf Of The Petitioners-applicants.
The Case Is Passed Over.
List In The Next Cause List."

The Case Was, Thereafter, Listed On 10th December 2004. On The Said Date, I.e. 10th December 2004, The Case Was Passed Over On The Illness Slip Of Sri Vinod Kumar Srivastava, Learned Counsel For The Petitioners-applicants, And Was Directed To Be Listed Peremptorily On 13-1-2005.

The Said Order Dated 10th December 2004 Is As Follows :

"Sri Vinod Kumar Srivastava, Learned Counsel For The Petitioners-applicants Has Sent Illness Slip Today.
The Case Is Passed Over.
List Peremptorily On 13-1-2005."

Pursuant To The Said Order Dated 10th December 2004, The Contempt Petition Was Listed Before The Court On 13-1-2005. On The Said Date, I.e. 13-1-2005, The Case Was Directed To Be Listed Peremptorily On 28-1-2005 So As To Enable Sri Vinod Kumar Srivastava, Learned Counsel For The Petitioners-applicants To Obtain Instructions In The Matter.

Pursuant To The Said Order Dated 13-1-2005, The Case Is Listed Peremptorily, Today. However, As Noted Above, Sri Vinod Kumar Srivastava, Learned Counsel For The Petitioners-applicants Is Not Present Even Though The Cause List Has Been Revised.

From The Narration Of Facts Given Above, It Is Evident That No Order Has So Far Been Passed Directing For Issuance Of Notices To The Opposite Parties On The Contempt Petition. As Such, No Notice Has So Far Been Issued On The Contempt Petition To Any Of The Opposite Parties.

In The Circumstances, I Am Of The Opinion That No Useful Purpose Will Be Served By Directing For Issuance Of Notices To The Opposite Parties, Now After A Lapse Of More Than 9 Years Since The Filing Of The Contempt Petition In September 1995.

The Contempt Petition Has Become Infructuous, And The Same Is Liable To Be Dismissed As Such.

The Contempt Petition Is Accordingly Dismissed As Having Become Infructuous.

Dt. 07-02-2005/AK

 

 

Go to Navigation