A contempt petition filed under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC alleging disobedience of the interim stay orders is required to be decided on merits and the trial court has not committed any illegality or jurisdictional error in not disposing of the contempt petition as having become infructuous merely on account of deciding the suit finally.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 172/2022

In

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.133/2017

Santosh Kumar Son Of Late Shri Kashi Nath Sharma, Resident Of Barwara

House Servant Quarters, Civil Lines, Ajmer Road Jaipur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner

Versus

Smt. Shakuntala Singh Wife Of Shri Harender Singh, R/o 6/8 Barwara House

Colony, Civil Lines, Ajmer Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

----Respondent

Connected With

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 56/2017

Santosh Kumar Sharma, S/o Late Shri Kashi Nath Sharma, R/o 21-D, Behind

Servant Quarters, Barwara House, Civil Lines, Ajmer Road, Jaipur

----Petitioner

Versus

Bhagwati Singh S/o Shri Rao Bahadur Raja Man Singh, R/o Barwara, Distt.

Sawai Madhopur Rajasthan

----Respondent

Smt. Hema Sharma W/o Shri Sudhanshu Sharma D/o Santosh Kumar

Sharma, resident of behind D-21, Servant Quarters, Barwada House, Civil

Lines, Jaipur

----Proforma Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. R K Mathur, Sr. Advocate assisted

by Mr. Ram Prasad Sharma

For Respondent(s)

:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

Order

03/01/2023

1.

Heard learned senior counsel for petitioner and perused the

record.

2.

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.133/2017 was dismissed by

this Court vide Order dated 15.09.2022, taking note of the fact

that original contempt petition pending before the trial court was

abated. An application No.172/2022 has been filed stating inter

alia that as a matter of fact the original contempt petition was

abated in respect of S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.56/2017 and

therefore, by recalling order dated 15.09.2022, revision Petition

(2 of 5)

[CMAP-172/2022]

No.56/2017 titled Santosh Kumar Sharma Vs. Bhagwati Singh be

dismissed as withdrawn and the S.B. Civil Revision Petition

No.133/2017 be decided on merits.

3.

Taking into consideration the contentions made hereinabove,

with the consent of counsel for petitioner & without recalling the

order dated 15.09.2022, the revision petition No.133/2017 has

been heard on merits.

4.

It appears that respondent Smt. Shakuntala Singh had

instituted a civil suit for permanent injunction against the

petitioner Santosh Kumar Sharma along with application for

temporary injunction. In the application for temporary injunction,

filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC, interim stay orders dated

15.04.2005/19.05.2005 were passed to maintain status quo.

Thereafter, respondent-plaintiff filed one application under Order

39 Rule 2A CPC on 04.05.2005 alleging inter alia that interim stay

orders dated 15.04.2005 and 19.05.2005 have been flouted and

therefore, the anti status quo position as delineated in the report

of Court Commissioner dated 15.04.2005 be restored as well as

petitioner be suitably punished for disobedience of the interim stay

order. The application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC is pending and

yet to be decided finally on merits.

5.

It appears that during pendency of application under Order

39 Rule 2A CPC, application for temporary injunction was decided

vide order dated 22.01.2007, thereafter, the original suit

No.193/2009 itself was decreed vide judgment dated 03.08.2010.

It has been informed that petitioner has challenged the judgment

and decree dated 03.08.2010 by way of filing civil regular first

appeal No.377/2010 before the High Court which is yet pending.

(3 of 5)

[CMAP-172/2022]

6.

Since the application filed by respondent under Order 39

Rule 2A CPC for disobedience of the interim stay order dated

15.04.2005 remained pending, though the original suit was finally

decided by judgment dated 3.8.2010, therefore, petitioner moved

application to dispose of the contempt petition filed under Order

39 Rule 2A CPC as having become infructuous, in view of deciding

the suit finally. It was urged by the petitioner that the interim stay

order dated 15.4.2005 for which disobedience was alleged, has

merged in the final decree dated 3.8.2010