Kallan Ali v. Sri Kunwar Anupam Singh

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant does not want to file the reply to the compliance affidavit filed by the respondent. The present contempt applicant has been preferred for non-compliance of the interim order dated

16.04.2018, for convenience, the same is quoted hereinbelow: "Sri Amitesh Pratap Singh, holding brief of Ms. Meera Jain, learned counsel has filed vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.3 which is taken on record. Issue notice to opposite party no.4. Till the next date of listing the impugned orders insofar as the cancellation of sale deed executed in favour of opposite party no.4 is concerned shall remain in abeyance." 2 CAPL No. 1138 of 2025 Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that despite there is an interim order passed by this Court keeping in abeyance the cancellation of sale deed executed in favour of the applicant, the Respondent No.4, who was Respondent No.3 in the writ petition had sold the properties by executing four sale deeds dated 14.12.2022, 08.01.2024, 6.2.2024 and 11.04.2025 including the land for which the sale deed has been executed in favour of the applicant. The Respondent No.4, who is present alongwith his counsel has submitted that the appeal preferred by Suraya Kumar i.e. Respondent No.4 in the present case was allowed. The said order was passed on 3.4.2018, whereas this Court has passed an interim order on

16.04.2018, so placing reliance upon the order dated 3.4.2018 passed by Appellate Court will not nullify the interim order passed by this Court dated 16.04.2018. The second submission raised the learned counsel for Respondent No.4 is that the stay order granted by this Court is only for the purposes of recovery made by the present applicant from Gaurishankar from whom he has purchased the land, but in the interim order there is nothing on record or in the order that the stay order has been granted to the limited extent of recovery. The Respondent No.4 has admitted that he had executed four sale deeds of total land of Gata No.1182 including the land for which the sale deed was executed by Gaurishankar in favour of the present applicant. It is also not disputed by the Respondent No.4 that the order dated 16.04.2018 was passed in the presence of the counsel for the Respondent No.4, who was respondent No.3 in the writ petition, so it cannot be said that the Respondent No.4 before this Court was not having the knowledge of the interim order passed by this Court on 16.04.2018. On being asked whether any stay vacation application has been filed or not, it has been replied that the counter affidavit has been filed, meaning thereby the case is being contested by the Respondent No.4 before the writ court and simultaneously selling the property despite the existence of the interim order passed by this Court. On being asked whether the interim order dated 16.04.2018 has been vacated or lapsed, it is very fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the Respondent No.4. that the order is in operation. It is further submitted by learned counsel for Respondent No.4 that the writ petition is not maintainable. This fact cannot be seen by the Contempt Court as the Contempt Court is not having the power to adjudicate the matter regarding the maintainability of the writ petition or decide the matter on merits. 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.4- Sri Surya Kumar so called son of 3 CAPL No. 1138 of 2025 Jagannath, R/s Village & Post Bandhuwa Kalan, Pargana - Meeranpur, Tehsil Sadar, District Sultanpur :- "Why contemnor - respondent no.4 be not punished for willful and deliberate disobedience of the interim order dated 16.04.2018 passed in Writ-C No.10929/2018 (Gaurishankar and another vs. Additional Commissioner Judicial Faizabad Division and others)." The respondent - 4 is granted two weeks' time to file reply to the aforesaid charge. List this case on 17.09.2025. On that date, the respondent no.4 shall appear in person."

4. In pursuance of the order dated 13.08.2025 the respondent No.4 has filed his explanation to the charge framed against him.

5. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.4 has submitted that the execution of sale deed was not at all intentional and Respondent No.4 was misadvised.

6. He has further submitted that the interim order dated 16.04.2018 has not been extended subsequently and at present the interim order is not in existence.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the sale deeds were executed on 14.12.2022, 08.01.2024, 06.02.2024 and

11.04.2025 by the respondent no.4 when the interim order was in existence. The interim order was not extended since 27.05.2025 and the Respondent No.4 once admitting on affidavit that he had executed the sale deeds during operation of the interim order, it is nothing but a clear contempt of the interim order passed by the writ Court and he is liable to be punished under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971.

8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, the position which emerges out is that the interim order was granted on 16.04.2018, which was in operation till 27.05.2025 and during the said period of existence of the interim order, the Respondent No.4 had not only executed one sale deed but also he had executed four sale deeds on 14.12.2022, 08.01.2024, 06.02.2024 and 11.04.2025 and the 4 CAPL No. 1138 of 2025 submission made on behalf of Respondent No.4 that it was due to some misadvise and not intentional, which is not acceptable or tenable in the eyes of law for the reason that the Respondent No.4 is not denying the operation of the interim order at the time of execution of the four sale deeds by him and it is also not disclosed as to who had misadvised him and what misadvise was given to him.

9. The submission of learned counsel for the Respondent No.4 that the interim order was not subsequently extended is misleading for the reason that the interim order was not extended after 27.05.2025, and since

16.04.2018 till 27.05.2025 it was in existence / in operation and all four sale deeds were executed during the said period, so the clear contempt is made out against Respondent No.4 and he is liable to be punished for contempt of Court under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

10. Accordingly, the Respondent No.4 Sri Surya Kumar so called son of Jagannath is awarded a sentence of four months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2000/-

11. The amount of fine shall be deposited within one month and he shall surrender before the C.J.M. Sultanpur to serve the sentence within three weeks from today. In case he does not surrender within the time given above, the C.J.M. Sultanpur shall cause him to be arrested to serve on the sentence.

12. The Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the C.J.M. Sultanpur. October 8, 2025 S. Kumar (Manish Kumar,J.) SANTOSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant does not want to file the reply to the compliance affidavit filed by the respondent. The present contempt applicant has been preferred for non-compliance of the interim order dated

16.04.2018, for convenience, the same is quoted hereinbelow: "Sri Amitesh Pratap Singh, holding brief of Ms. Meera Jain, learned counsel has filed vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.3 which is taken on record. Issue notice to opposite party no.4. Till the next date of listing the impugned orders insofar as the cancellation of sale deed executed in favour of opposite party no.4 is concerned shall remain in abeyance." 2 CAPL No. 1138 of 2025 Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that despite there is an interim order passed by this Court keeping in abeyance the cancellation of sale deed executed in favour of the applicant, the Respondent No.4, who was Respondent No.3 in the writ petition had sold the properties by executing four sale deeds dated 14.12.2022, 08.01.2024, 6.2.2024 and 11.04.2025 including the land for which the sale deed has been executed in favour of the applicant. The Respondent No.4, who is present alongwith his counsel has submitted that the appeal preferred by Suraya Kumar i.e. Respondent No.4 in the present case was allowed. The said order was passed on 3.4.2018, whereas this Court has passed an interim order on

16.04.2018, so placing reliance upon the order dated 3.4.2018 passed by Appellate Court will not nullify the interim order passed by this Court dated 16.04.2018. The second submission raised the learned counsel for Respondent No.4 is that the stay order granted by this Court is only for the purposes of recovery made by the present applicant from Gaurishankar from whom he has purchased the land, but in the interim order there is nothing on record or in the order that the stay order has been granted to the limited extent of recovery. The Respondent No.4 has admitted that he had executed four sale deeds of total land of Gata No.1182 including the land for which the sale deed was executed by Gaurishankar in favour of the present applicant. It is also not disputed by the Respondent No.4 that the order dated 16.04.2018 was passed in the presence of the counsel for the Respondent No.4, who was respondent No.3 in the writ petition, so it cannot be said that the Respondent No.4 before this Court was not having the knowledge of the interim order passed by this Court on 16.04.2018. On being asked whether any stay vacation application has been filed or not, it has been replied that the counter affidavit has been filed, meaning thereby the case is being contested by the Respondent No.4 before the writ court and simultaneously selling the property despite the existence of the interim order passed by this Court. On being asked whether the interim order dated 16.04.2018 has been vacated or lapsed, it is very fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the Respondent No.4. that the order is in operation. It is further submitted by learned counsel for Respondent No.4 that the writ petition is not maintainable. This fact cannot be seen by the Contempt Court as the Contempt Court is not having the power to adjudicate the matter regarding the maintainability of the writ petition or decide the matter on merits. 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.4- Sri Surya Kumar so called son of 3 CAPL No. 1138 of 2025 Jagannath, R/s Village & Post Bandhuwa Kalan, Pargana - Meeranpur, Tehsil Sadar, District Sultanpur :- "Why contemnor - respondent no.4 be not punished for willful and deliberate disobedience of the interim order dated 16.04.2018 passed in Writ-C No.10929/2018 (Gaurishankar and another vs. Additional Commissioner Judicial Faizabad Division and others)." The respondent - 4 is granted two weeks' time to file reply to the aforesaid charge. List this case on 17.09.2025. On that date, the respondent no.4 shall appear in person."

4. In pursuance of the order dated 13.08.2025 the respondent No.4 has filed his explanation to the charge framed against him.

5. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.4 has submitted that the execution of sale deed was not at all intentional and Respondent No.4 was misadvised.

6. He has further submitted that the interim order dated 16.04.2018 has not been extended subsequently and at present the interim order is not in existence.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the sale deeds were executed on 14.12.2022, 08.01.2024, 06.02.2024 and

11.04.2025 by the respondent no.4 when the interim order was in existence. The interim order was not extended since 27.05.2025 and the Respondent No.4 once admitting on affidavit that he had executed the sale deeds during operation of the interim order, it is nothing but a clear contempt of the interim order passed by the writ Court and he is liable to be punished under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971.

8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, the position which emerges out is that the interim order was granted on 16.04.2018, which was in operation till 27.05.2025 and during the said period of existence of the interim order, the Respondent No.4 had not only executed one sale deed but also he had executed four sale deeds on 14.12.2022, 08.01.2024, 06.02.2024 and 11.04.2025 and the 4 CAPL No. 1138 of 2025 submission made on behalf of Respondent No.4 that it was due to some misadvise and not intentional, which is not acceptable or tenable in the eyes of law for the reason that the Respondent No.4 is not denying the operation of the interim order at the time of execution of the four sale deeds by him and it is also not disclosed as to who had misadvised him and what misadvise was given to him.

9. The submission of learned counsel for the Respondent No.4 that the interim order was not subsequently extended is misleading for the reason that the interim order was not extended after 27.05.2025, and since

16.04.2018 till 27.05.2025 it was in existence / in operation and all four sale deeds were executed during the said period, so the clear contempt is made out against Respondent No.4 and he is liable to be punished for contempt of Court under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

10. Accordingly, the Respondent No.4 Sri Surya Kumar so called son of Jagannath is awarded a sentence of four months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2000/-

11. The amount of fine shall be deposited within one month and he shall surrender before the C.J.M. Sultanpur to serve the sentence within three weeks from today. In case he does not surrender within the time given above, the C.J.M. Sultanpur shall cause him to be arrested to serve on the sentence.

12. The Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the C.J.M. Sultanpur. October 8, 2025 S. Kumar (Manish Kumar,J.) SANTOSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench