High Court

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Ajey Singh learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of contemnor Bikram Chhabra which is also present in the Court. The record indicates that a coordinate Bench of this Court by means of the order dated 19.03.2025 had passed a detailed order noticing the fact that on 19.02.2025 the charges were framed against contemnor and yet on the date fixed, he was not present before the Court. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the contemnor was required to be present before the Court. In order to put the matter in a perspective, it would reveal that the suit has been filed before the civil court relating to partition of property. Since no orders were passed on an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. the petitioner no.1 had filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India bearing no.1072 of 2023 wherein the Court vide order dated 02.03.2023 had directed that till the disposal of application for temporary injunction no third party right shall be created over the suit property. As per the petitioner this order was placed on record of the trial court on 03.04.2023 and within few days thereafter two separate sale deeds came to be executed by Sri Bikram Chhabra the contemnor dated 13.04.2023 and 25.04.2023 both in favour of Ranveer Singh. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the contempt proceedings were initiated before this Court. At this stage, it will be relevant to notice that order dated 22.01.2025 passed by coordinate Bench of this Court which reads as under: "Short counter affidavit filed today by opposite party No.2, is taken on record. This Court vide order dated 02.03.2023 directed that till decision in the application for temporary injunction, no third party rights shall be created over suit property. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the injunction application has not been decided till now and despite retrain order passed by this Court dated 02.03.2023 the defendants in the suit have sold the property in this case. Opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 have filed an affidavit admitting that they have sold the property despite the order passed by this Court. Let opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 be present before the Court on 19.02.2025 to explain why they should not be punished for committing contempt of the order passed by this Court. List this case on 19.02.2025." From a perusal of the aforesaid order it is clear that contemnor had admitted in his affidavit that he had sold the property in question. The record indicates that a coordinate Bench of this Court by means of the order dated 19.02.2025 had framed the charges and the same reads as under: "The present application has been filed for non compliance of the order dated 02.03.2023. The relevant extract of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:- "Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bahraich is directed to decide application for temporary injunction pending in original suit No. 2120 of 2022 (Shital Arora and another versus V.Bikram Chhabra and another) expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is brought on record of the proceedings without granting undue adjournments to either parties and in case there is no other legal impediment . It is provided that till decision in the application for temporary injunction, no third party rights shall be created over suit property. Benefit of this order shall be available to the petitioner only in case he cooperates with the proceedings. With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of." Short counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2, which is taken on record. Rejoinder affidavit to the short counter affidavit filed earlier by respondent nos.1 and 2 has been filed, which is also taken on record. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the respondent no.1 had executed a sale deed on 13.04.2023 despite there being an order of the writ court restraining the parties not to create any third party right over the suit property till decision in the application for temporary injunction. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 has submitted that the said order passed by the writ court is conditional i.e. benefit of the order passed by the writ court shall be available to the applicants only in case they cooperate with the proceedings whereas they are seeking adjournments frequently and in support of his submission, he drawn the attention of this Court to the order sheets dated 02.09.2024 till 18.09.2024 where on about 11 dates adjournment was sought. They are not cooperating with the proceedings. It is further submitted that the respondent no.2 has not committed the alleged contempt for the reason that the sale deed was executed by the respondent no.1 and the respondent no.2 is neither signatory nor witness to the same, therefore notices may be discharged against her. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, it is found that the writ court had passed an order dated 02.03.2023 which is quoted herein above. It is a conditional order and non-cooperation with the proceedings by the applicants, which is relevant prior to 13.04.2023 not from 02.09.2024 till 18.09.2024. The copy of the order passed by the writ court was filed along with application on 02.04.2023 after service upon the respondent no.1/defendant in the suit and since 02.04.2023 till 13.04.2023 i.e the date of execution of sale deed. The applicants had never ever taken any adjournment. The order sheets filed by the respondents in the short counter affidavit the case was fixed 2 or 3 occasions and due to the lawyers were abstaining from work the dates were fixed and within 11 days of service of the order of the High Court, the sale deed was executed by the respondent no.1 which is willful and deliberate disobedience of the judgment and order passed by the writ court. In the aforesaid circumstances, a case under Rule 5 of Chapter XXXV-E of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (Rules framed under Section 23 of Contempt of Courts Act,1971) is made out, accordingly the following charge is being framed against the respondent no.1- Bikram Chhabra:- "Why contemnor - respondent no. 1 be not punished for willful and deliberate disobedience of the judgement and order dated 02.03.2023 passed in Matters Under Article 227 No.1072 of 2023 (Shital Arora vs. Bikaram Chahabra and anther)". The respondent no.1- Bikram Chhabra is granted three weeks' time to file reply to the aforesaid charge. List this case in the week commencing 17.03.2025. Appearance of respondent no.2 is exempted in this case unless called for by the Court. " Sri G.M. Kamil learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of subsequent purchaser. It has been informed to this Court that on 07.07.2025 the contempt court had recorded a stand taken by the contemnor that he has already filed a suit before the trial court seeking cancellation of both the sale deeds dated 13.04.2023 and 25.04.2023 and he further indicated that he will return entire money to the purchaser and also bear the cost of construction if any done by the respondent no.3. The order dated 07.07.2025 reads as under: "1. Supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite parties no.1 and 2 and application for exemption of personal appearance of applicant no.1, both are taken on record.

2. Personal appearance of applicant no.1 is exempted.

3. Shri Ajey Singh, learned cousnel for opposite parties no.1 and 2, has submitted that he has moved the suit for cancellation of both the sale deeds dated 13.4.2023 and 25.4.2023. He has submitted that he will return the entire amount to the purchaser and will also bear the cost of the construction, if any, done by the respondent no.3. He has submitted that he will not claim the land in question.

4. He has further submitted that his client will complete all the above mentioned formalities within four weeks.

5. List this case on 7.8.2025. On the said date all the parties will appear before this Court with complete instructions and necessary compliance." Despite the same Sri Kamil has informed that he has not received the money. Considering the aforesaid circumstances and the chain of events it transpires that on 19.02.2025 the charges were also framed. As of today, once the charges have been framed, there is nothing more that requires to be done by this Court except to proceed on merits of the issue of contempt. The record further indicates that Bikram Chhabra has already submitted his reply to the charge framed on 11.04.2025 in shape of an affidavit. From a perusal of the said affidavit, it indicates that in paras 3, 4 and 5 the contemnor has stated as under; which is being reproduced herein for ease of the reference: "3. That it is pertinent to mention here that the contempt proceeding has been initiated against the opposite party no.1, because during operation of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in A-227 No.1072 of 2023, the respondent no.1 has sale the property in dispute, while he has earlier submitted his grievances before this Hon'ble Court by way of filing short counter affidavit on 18.02.2025 which is on record.

4. That the respondents no.1 and 2 have not committed any willful disobedience of this Hon'ble Court's order and in lack of meaning of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court, he has executed a sale-deed in favour of respondent no.3.

5. That it is pertinent to mention here that the respondent no.1 has filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 13.04.2023 and 25.04.2023 which was executed by him before the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bahraich bearing Civil Suit no.49/2025 (Bikram Chhabra Versus Ranveer Singh) on 26.03.2025. which has also been filed by way of second short counter affidavit on 27.03.2025." In view of the aforesaid, apparently ex facie the contempt committed by the contemnor is made out. The affidavit of reply to the charge is not found satisfactory nor does it reflect any bona fide defence. In view of the aforesaid, apparently this Court finds that the response which has been given by the contemnor does not reflected any bonafide defence. At this stage, the Court had put a specific query to the contemnor who is present in the Court that the Court had read his defence but it did not reflect any bonafide, hence it is open to the contemnor as to whether he wishes to add or say something in his defence. In reply, the contemnor Bikram Chhabra stated in presence of his counsel Sri Ajey Singh that there has been a mistake and he is ready to return the money and he has also filed a suit for cancellation of the two impugned sale deeds dated 13.04.2023 and 25.04.2023, however, he stated that he requires time to return money. It was also put to him that within how much time he proposes to return the money since the sale deeds are dated 13.04.2023 and 25.04.2023 and the contempt petition was filed on 01.03.2024 and the Court had issued notices on 11.03.2024, therefore, more than a year has lapsed and it was further stated that he may consider the entire fact before making a request. In response, he stated that he can only repay the money by selling the property which requires time which could extend upto two months. It will be relevant to notice that the question of execution of the two sale deeds is not in dispute and apparently two sale deeds are in teeth of the order passed by the writ court. The charges had been framed and the contemnor is facing contempt proceedings since March, 2024 and despite lapse of a year and a half, several affidavits have been filed yet there is no concrete reply regarding the return of money. Considering the copies of the plaint which has been filed by the contemnor along with his second short counter affidavit dated 27.03.2025 which was filed on 26.03.2025, in the given circumstances, this Court finds that there is a clear material before the Court in terms whereof, it is clear that Bikram Chhabra S/o Late Surendra Kumar Chhabra has violated the order passed by the writ court, despite having knowledge of the same. Accordingly, this Court finds that the contemnor to be guilty of violating the order passed by the writ court dated 02.03.2023 passed in Matter under Article 227 no.1072 of 2023. This matter shall now come up before the Court on 28.08.2025 considering reply of the contemnor for sentencing. It is also made clear that it will also be open for the contemnor to comply with the order which circumstance shall also be taken note of by the court considering the sentence to be awarded and it will be open to the contemnor to file his response in this regard through his personal affidavit. Accordingly, this Court hold that Bikram Chhabra S/o Late Surendra Kumar Chhabra is guilty of contempt of the order passed by the writ court dated 02.03.2023 in Matter under Article 227 no.1072 of 2023. The Court had also specifically required the contemnor in person to respond if he wants to add anything in pursuance of his reply to which he only stated that he requires time to make the payment and that he also admits that the order of the Court has been violated. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, list on 28.08.2025 for sentencing. It will be open for the contemnor to comply with the order by then which may be noticed by the Court while taking into consideration the sentence to be awarded. Order Date :- 7.8.2025 Harshita

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Ajey Singh learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of contemnor Bikram Chhabra which is also present in the Court. The record indicates that a coordinate Bench of this Court by means of the order dated 19.03.2025 had passed a detailed order noticing the fact that on 19.02.2025 the charges were framed against contemnor and yet on the date fixed, he was not present before the Court. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the contemnor was required to be present before the Court. In order to put the matter in a perspective, it would reveal that the suit has been filed before the civil court relating to partition of property. Since no orders were passed on an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. the petitioner no.1 had filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India bearing no.1072 of 2023 wherein the Court vide order dated 02.03.2023 had directed that till the disposal of application for temporary injunction no third party right shall be created over the suit property. As per the petitioner this order was placed on record of the trial court on 03.04.2023 and within few days thereafter two separate sale deeds came to be executed by Sri Bikram Chhabra the contemnor dated 13.04.2023 and 25.04.2023 both in favour of Ranveer Singh. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the contempt proceedings were initiated before this Court. At this stage, it will be relevant to notice that order dated 22.01.2025 passed by coordinate Bench of this Court which reads as under: "Short counter affidavit filed today by opposite party No.2, is taken on record. This Court vide order dated 02.03.2023 directed that till decision in the application for temporary injunction, no third party rights shall be created over suit property. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the injunction application has not been decided till now and despite retrain order passed by this Court dated 02.03.2023 the defendants in the suit have sold the property in this case. Opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 have filed an affidavit admitting that they have sold the property despite the order passed by this Court. Let opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 be present before the Court on 19.02.2025 to explain why they should not be punished for committing contempt of the order passed by this Court. List this case on 19.02.2025." From a perusal of the aforesaid order it is clear that contemnor had admitted in his affidavit that he had sold the property in question. The record indicates that a coordinate Bench of this Court by means of the order dated 19.02.2025 had framed the charges and the same reads as under: "The present application has been filed for non compliance of the order dated 02.03.2023. The relevant extract of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:- "Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bahraich is directed to decide application for temporary injunction pending in original suit No. 2120 of 2022 (Shital Arora and another versus V.Bikram Chhabra and another) expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is brought on record of the proceedings without granting undue adjournments to either parties and in case there is no other legal impediment . It is provided that till decision in the application for temporary injunction, no third party rights shall be created over suit property. Benefit of this order shall be available to the petitioner only in case he cooperates with the proceedings. With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of." Short counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2, which is taken on record. Rejoinder affidavit to the short counter affidavit filed earlier by respondent nos.1 and 2 has been filed, which is also taken on record. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the respondent no.1 had executed a sale deed on 13.04.2023 despite there being an order of the writ court restraining the parties not to create any third party right over the suit property till decision in the application for temporary injunction. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 has submitted that the said order passed by the writ court is conditional i.e. benefit of the order passed by the writ court shall be available to the applicants only in case they cooperate with the proceedings whereas they are seeking adjournments frequently and in support of his submission, he drawn the attention of this Court to the order sheets dated 02.09.2024 till 18.09.2024 where on about 11 dates adjournment was sought. They are not cooperating with the proceedings. It is further submitted that the respondent no.2 has not committed the alleged contempt for the reason that the sale deed was executed by the respondent no.1 and the respondent no.2 is neither signatory nor witness to the same, therefore notices may be discharged against her. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, it is found that the writ court had passed an order dated 02.03.2023 which is quoted herein above. It is a conditional order and non-cooperation with the proceedings by the applicants, which is relevant prior to 13.04.2023 not from 02.09.2024 till 18.09.2024. The copy of the order passed by the writ court was filed along with application on 02.04.2023 after service upon the respondent no.1/defendant in the suit and since 02.04.2023 till 13.04.2023 i.e the date of execution of sale deed. The applicants had never ever taken any adjournment. The order sheets filed by the respondents in the short counter affidavit the case was fixed 2 or 3 occasions and due to the lawyers were abstaining from work the dates were fixed and within 11 days of service of the order of the High Court, the sale deed was executed by the respondent no.1 which is willful and deliberate disobedience of the judgment and order passed by the writ court. In the aforesaid circumstances, a case under Rule 5 of Chapter XXXV-E of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (Rules framed under Section 23 of Contempt of Courts Act,1971) is made out, accordingly the following charge is being framed against the respondent no.1- Bikram Chhabra:- "Why contemnor - respondent no. 1 be not punished for willful and deliberate disobedience of the judgement and order dated 02.03.2023 passed in Matters Under Article 227 No.1072 of 2023 (Shital Arora vs. Bikaram Chahabra and anther)". The respondent no.1- Bikram Chhabra is granted three weeks' time to file reply to the aforesaid charge. List this case in the week commencing 17.03.2025. Appearance of respondent no.2 is exempted in this case unless called for by the Court. " Sri G.M. Kamil learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of subsequent purchaser. It has been informed to this Court that on 07.07.2025 the contempt court had recorded a stand taken by the contemnor that he has already filed a suit before the trial court seeking cancellation of both the sale deeds dated 13.04.2023 and 25.04.2023 and he further indicated that he will return entire money to the purchaser and also bear the cost of construction if any done by the respondent no.3. The order dated 07.07.2025 reads as under: "1. Supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite parties no.1 and 2 and application for exemption of personal appearance of applicant no.1, both are taken on record.

2. Personal appearance of applicant no.1 is exempted.

3. Shri Ajey Singh, learned cousnel for opposite parties no.1 and 2, has submitted that he has moved the suit for cancellation of both the sale deeds dated 13.4.2023 and 25.4.2023. He has submitted that he will return the entire amount to the purchaser and will also bear the cost of the construction, if any, done by the respondent no.3. He has submitted that he will not claim the land in question.

4. He has further submitted that his client will complete all the above mentioned formalities within four weeks.

5. List this case on 7.8.2025. On the said date all the parties will appear before this Court with complete instructions and necessary compliance." Despite the same Sri Kamil has informed that he has not received the money. Considering the aforesaid circumstances and the chain of events it transpires that on 19.02.2025 the charges were also framed. As of today, once the charges have been framed, there is nothing more that requires to be done by this Court except to proceed on merits of the issue of contempt. The record further indicates that Bikram Chhabra has already submitted his reply to the charge framed on 11.04.2025 in shape of an affidavit. From a perusal of the said affidavit, it indicates that in paras 3, 4 and 5 the contemnor has stated as under; which is being reproduced herein for ease of the reference: "3. That it is pertinent to mention here that the contempt proceeding has been initiated against the opposite party no.1, because during operation of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in A-227 No.1072 of 2023, the respondent no.1 has sale the property in dispute, while he has earlier submitted his grievances before this Hon'ble Court by way of filing short counter affidavit on 18.02.2025 which is on record.

4. That the respondents no.1 and 2 have not committed any willful disobedience of this Hon'ble Court's order and in lack of meaning of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court, he has executed a sale-deed in favour of respondent no.3.

5. That it is pertinent to mention here that the respondent no.1 has filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 13.04.2023 and 25.04.2023 which was executed by him before the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bahraich bearing Civil Suit no.49/2025 (Bikram Chhabra Versus Ranveer Singh) on 26.03.2025. which has also been filed by way of second short counter affidavit on 27.03.2025." In view of the aforesaid, apparently ex facie the contempt committed by the contemnor is made out. The affidavit of reply to the charge is not found satisfactory nor does it reflect any bona fide defence. In view of the aforesaid, apparently this Court finds that the response which has been given by the contemnor does not reflected any bonafide defence. At this stage, the Court had put a specific query to the contemnor who is present in the Court that the Court had read his defence but it did not reflect any bonafide, hence it is open to the contemnor as to whether he wishes to add or say something in his defence. In reply, the contemnor Bikram Chhabra stated in presence of his counsel Sri Ajey Singh that there has been a mistake and he is ready to return the money and he has also filed a suit for cancellation of the two impugned sale deeds dated 13.04.2023 and 25.04.2023, however, he stated that he requires time to return money. It was also put to him that within how much time he proposes to return the money since the sale deeds are dated 13.04.2023 and 25.04.2023 and the contempt petition was filed on 01.03.2024 and the Court had issued notices on 11.03.2024, therefore, more than a year has lapsed and it was further stated that he may consider the entire fact before making a request. In response, he stated that he can only repay the money by selling the property which requires time which could extend upto two months. It will be relevant to notice that the question of execution of the two sale deeds is not in dispute and apparently two sale deeds are in teeth of the order passed by the writ court. The charges had been framed and the contemnor is facing contempt proceedings since March, 2024 and despite lapse of a year and a half, several affidavits have been filed yet there is no concrete reply regarding the return of money. Considering the copies of the plaint which has been filed by the contemnor along with his second short counter affidavit dated 27.03.2025 which was filed on 26.03.2025, in the given circumstances, this Court finds that there is a clear material before the Court in terms whereof, it is clear that Bikram Chhabra S/o Late Surendra Kumar Chhabra has violated the order passed by the writ court, despite having knowledge of the same. Accordingly, this Court finds that the contemnor to be guilty of violating the order passed by the writ court dated 02.03.2023 passed in Matter under Article 227 no.1072 of 2023. This matter shall now come up before the Court on 28.08.2025 considering reply of the contemnor for sentencing. It is also made clear that it will also be open for the contemnor to comply with the order which circumstance shall also be taken note of by the court considering the sentence to be awarded and it will be open to the contemnor to file his response in this regard through his personal affidavit. Accordingly, this Court hold that Bikram Chhabra S/o Late Surendra Kumar Chhabra is guilty of contempt of the order passed by the writ court dated 02.03.2023 in Matter under Article 227 no.1072 of 2023. The Court had also specifically required the contemnor in person to respond if he wants to add anything in pursuance of his reply to which he only stated that he requires time to make the payment and that he also admits that the order of the Court has been violated. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, list on 28.08.2025 for sentencing. It will be open for the contemnor to comply with the order by then which may be noticed by the Court while taking into consideration the sentence to be awarded. Order Date :- 7.8.2025 Harshita