D.G.R.PATNAIK, J. - (1.) IA No. 2406 of 2008 has been filed by the appellants praying for Initiation of a contempt proceeding against the respondent for alleged violation of the order of this Court passed on 29.2.2008.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel would explain that by the aforesaid order, the proceedings in the execution case No. 1 of 2007 pending before the Munsif, Seraikela Khar -sawan was stayed. Though such stay was allowed till the appearance of the respondent, but the order of stay was not vacated. In fact, the respondent had filed a petition after her appearance in the case through her lawyer for vacating the stay, but for the reasons known to her, the petition was not pressed and no order was passed and therefore the order of stay having not been vacated, it is deemed that the same continues. Yet, by making wrong representation before the Executing Court, the respondent has proceeded to obtain writ of delivery of possession from the Court below. Thus, according to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the respondent has committed contempt of lawful order of this Court.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, would explain that the order of stay was passed for a limited period i.e., till appearance of the respondent. The respondent appeared through lawyer and also filed petition for vacating the order of stay, but the petition was never listed for hearing and therefore it was not pressed.;