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.-Notice Issued In 1994 To O.p.No.1-Not Received Back.Contempt Petn. Dismissed As Infructuous.
JUDGEMENT TITLE : Vikramaditya Chauhan Vs. Smt. Ram Lal Singh And Another. On 03/01/2005 By Allahabad High Court
CASE NO : CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO. 786 OF 1994.
CORAM : Hon'ble Satya Poot Mehrotra,J.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Court No. 48

Civil Misc. Contempt Application No. 786 Of 1994

Vikramaditya Chauhan ....Applicant/Petitioner.

Versus

Smt. Ram Lali Singh And Another .....Opp.Parties.

******
Hon'ble S. P.Mehrotra, J.

The Present Contempt Petition Has Been Filed Under Section 12 Of The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971, Inter-alia, Praying For Punishing The Opposite Party No. 1 For Having Committed Contempt Of This Court By Allegedly Dis-obeying The Order Dated 10-1-1994 Passed By This Court In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44631 Of 1993.

By The Order Dated 16-5-1994 Passed On The Contempt Petition, Notice Was Directed To Be Issued To The Opposite Party No. 1 To Show Cause As To Why She Be Not Punished Under The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971 For Wilfully Dis-obeying The Directions Contained In The Order Dated 10-1-1994 Passed By This Court In The Aforementioned Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44631 Of 1993. The Said Order Dated 16-5-1994 Is Reproduced Below :

"Issue Notice To Opposite Party No.1 To Show Cause As To Why She May Not Be Punished, Under The Provisions Of Contempt Of Court Act For Wilfully Disobeying The Directions Contained In The Order Dated 10-1-1994, Passed By This Court In Writ Petition No. 44631 Of 1993. The Cause May Be Shown Within A Month From The Date Of Receipt Of Service Of Notice Of The Contempt Petition.
The Notice Shall Be Returnable By 31-8-1994.
List On 16-9-94."

Pursuant To The Said Order Dated 16-5-1994, It Appears That Notice Was Issued To The Opposite Party No.1 Fixing 16-9-1994. The Office Report Dated 15-9-1994 Submitted In This Regard Is Quoted Below :

"In View Of Court's Order Dated 16-5-1994, Notice Issued To O.P. No.1 Fixing 16-9-1994 Vide Court's Letter No. 1921 Dated 9-6-1994 Has Not Been Received Back After Service.
The Case Is Put Up For Orders."

By The Order Dated 6-4-2004, The Office Was Directed To Submit Report Regarding Latest Position In Respect Of Service Of Notice Stated To Have Been Issued Pursuant To The Said Order Dated 16-5-1994. The Said Order Dated 6-4-2004 Is Reproduced Below :

"Office Is Directed To Submit Report Regarding Latest Position In Respect Of Service Of Notice Stated To Have Been Issued Pursuant To The Order Dated 16-5-94.
List In The Next Cause List."

Pursuant To The Said Order Dated 6-4-2004, The Office Submitted Its Report Dated 27-9-2004, Which Is As Follows :

"Pursuant Court's Order Dated 6-4-2004, It Is Humbly Submitted That Notice Issued To O.P.No. 1 Has Not Been Returned Back After Service.
The Case Is Put Up For Order."

From A Perusal Of The Above-quoted Office Report Dated 27-9-2004, It Appears That The Notice Issued To The Opposite Party No. 1 Pursuant To The Said Order Dated 16-05-1994 Has Not Been Returned Back After Service. In The Circumstances, It Is Not Possible For This Court To Verify As To Whether The Notice Issued To The Opposite Party No.1, Pursuant To The Said Order Dated 16-5-1994, Was Actually Tendered On The Opposite Party No.1 Or Not.

The Contempt Petition Was Listed Before The Court On 28-09-2004 Along With The Said Office Report Dated 27-9-2004. On The Said Date, I.e. 28-9-2004, The Case Was Passed Over And Was Directed To Be Listed In The Next Cause List As The Learned Counsel For The Petitioner-applicant Was Not Present Even When The Case Was Taken Up In The Revised List. The Said Order Dated 28-9-2004 Is Quoted Below :

"List Has Been Revised. Learned Counsel For The Petitioner /applicant Is Not Present. The Case Is Passed Over.
List In The Next Cause List."

The Case Was Again Listed Before The Court On 23rd November 2004. On The Said Date, I.e. 23rd November, 2004, The Case Was Directed To Be Listed In The Next Cause List On Prayer Made By Sri S.P. Pandey, Learned Counsel For The Petitioner-applicant So As To Enable Him To Obtain Instructions Regarding Current Position In The Matter. The Said Order Dated 23rd November, 2004 Is Reproduced Below :

"On Prayer Made By Sri S.P. Pandey, Learned Counsel For The Petitioner-applicant, The Case Is Directed To Be Listed In The Next Cause List So As To Enable Him To Obtain Instructions Regarding Current Position In The Matter."

Pursuant To The Said Order Dated 23rd November 2004, The Case Was Listed On 14th December 2004. On The Said Date, I.e. 14-12-2004, The Case Was Passed Over And Was Directed To Be Listed In The Week Commencing 3rd January, 2005, As The Learned Counsel For The Petitioner-applicant Was Not Present Even When The Case Was Taken Up In The Revised List. The Said Order Dated 14-12-2004 Is As Follows :

"List Has Been Revised. Learned Counsel For The Petitioner-applicant Is Not Present.
The Case Is Passed Over.
List In The Week Commencing 3rd January, 2005."

Pursuant To The Said Order Dated 14-12-2004, The Case Is Listed Today. The Case Has Been Taken Up Today In The Revised List. However, The Learned Counsel For The Petitioner-applicant Is Not Present.

From The Above Narration Of Facts, It Is Evident That On 23-11-2004, The Learned Counsel For The Petitioner-applicant Got The Case Adjourned So As To Enable Him To Obtain Instructions Regarding Current Position In The Matter. However, When The Case Was Listed On 14-12-2004, The Learned Counsel For The Petitioner-applicant Was Not Present Even When The Case Was Taken Up In The Revised List. The Case Was Consequently Directed To Be Listed In The Week Commencing 3rd January, 2005.

Pursuant To The Said Order Dated 14-12-2004, The Case Is Listed Today. However, As Noted Above, The Learned Counsel For The Petitioner-applicant Is Not Present Even When The Case Has Been Taken Up In The Revised List.

In View Of The Continued Absence Of The Learned Counsel For The Petitioner-applicant And Also In View Of The Fact That It Is Not Possible For The Court To Verify As To Whether The Notice Issued Pursuant To The Said Order Dated 16-5-1994 Was Actually Tendered On The Opposite Party No.1, It Appears That The Present Contempt Petition Has Become Infructuous.

The Contempt Petition Is Consequently Dismissed As Having Become Infructuous.

The Show Cause Notice Issued To The Opposite Party No. 1, Pursuant To The Said Order Dated 16-5-1994, Is Discharged

Go to Navigation