Decided on February 14,2022

Shivam Das Chandani Appellant
Prabhu N. Singh Posted As Vice Chairman,L.D.A.,Lucknow Respondents


- (1.)Heard Mr. O.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Virendra Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1.
(2.)A preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court has been raised on the ground that the order impugned dtd. 5/1/2022 has been passed in the Contempt Application (Civil) No. 1261 of 2017; Shivam Das Chandani and 3 others vs. Prabhu N. Singh posted as Vice Chairman and others; whereby the learned Contempt Judge finding that the judgment and order dtd. 7/10/2015 passed by the Division Bench in Review Petition No. 7291(MB) of 2005 has been complied with, has dismissed the contempt application and consigned it to record.
(3.)The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants says that the order impugned is not a judgment dismissing the contempt application as no finding has been recorded regarding the compliance of the judgment and order dtd. 7/10/2015 passed by the writ Court. It has been submitted that the Hon'ble Contempt Judge has only mentioned the facts as argued by the learned counsel for the appellants and as argued by the learned counsel for the contemnors and thereafter observed that no cause of action survives and the contempt application was accordingly consigned to record. He has read out the relevant portion of the order dtd. 5/1/2022 which is being quoted hereinbelow:
"3. This contempt application has been filed for wilful disobedience of judgment and order dtd. 7/10/2015 passed by this Court in Review Petition No.7291 (M/B) of 2005.

4. Learned Senior counsel for the applicants submitted that the opposite party has deliberately not complied with the aforesaid order of this Hon'ble Court. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party has opposed the submission of learned counsel for the applicants and drawn attention of this Court towards compliance affidavit filed on 27/9/2018, wherein in paragraphs 5 to 8 it has been mentioned that compliance of the order dtd. 7/10/2015 has been made.

6. In view of the above, no cause of action survives in the present contempt application.

7. The contempt application is, accordingly, consigned to record."

It has been submitted that by referring to "cause of action" and by referring to the expression by the Court "consigned to record", the contempt Judge has exercised writ jurisdiction and not the contempt jurisdiction.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.