MEHSANA DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTDversusPANCHOLI KOKILABEN BHADRISHBHAI

        C/LPA/426/2026                             ORDER DATED: 11/06/2026




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                  R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 426 of 2026

                    In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/188/2021

                                     With
                  CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2026
                 In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 426 of 2026
==========================================================
          MEHSANA DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD
                              Versus
             PANCHOLI KOKILABEN BHADRISHBHAI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DIPAN DESAI(2481) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR BAIJU JOSHI(1207) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR. DEVANG VYAS, SENIOR ADVOCATE for MR JASH S
THAKKAR(11271) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
       SUNITA AGARWAL
       and
       HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY

                               Date : 11/06/2026

                         ORAL ORDER
     (PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA
                          AGARWAL)


1.       Mr. Baiju Joshi, learned advocate whose name is shown

in the cause-list on behalf of the respondent no. 1 would

submit that he has no instructions to appear on behalf of the

said respondent. In view of the said statement, the name of

Mr. Baiju Joshi, learned advocate be deleted from the cause-

list.



2.       Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and




                                   Page 1 of 8
     C/LPA/426/2026                              ORDER DATED: 11/06/2026




perused the record, it is noteworthy that this intracourt

appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated

13.04.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil

Application (for breach of order) No. 1 of 2021 in Special

Civil Application No. 188 of 2021 filed agitating the breach of

interim order dated 07.01.2021 passed in the writ petition

whereby the parties have been directed to maintain status

qua with respect to the property in question. The order dated

07.01.2021 granting the interim injunction in the writ

petition of 2021 is to be quoted hereinunder:-



               Heard Mr.Baiju Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner
            through Video Conferencing.
                 Issue NOTICE, returnable on 9.2.2021.
                  In the meantime, there shall be ad-interim relief in
            terms of paragraph No.9(B).
                 Direct Service is permitted. In addition thereto, the
            Registry is requested to communicate this order through
            E-mail and / or Fax.


3.    The relief in paragraph no. 9 (B) prayed in the writ

petition is further noted hereinunder:-



      (B) During the pendency hearing and final disposal of this
petition, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to stay the implementation,
execution and operation of the order, dated 5.10.2020, passed by


                                   Page 2 of 8
     C/LPA/426/2026                         ORDER DATED: 11/06/2026




the respondent No. 3 as well as the further proceedings held
pursuant to such order dated 5.10.2020 and further be pleased to
direct the respondents to maintain the status-quo qua the property
in question.


4.    For a bare perusal of the relief clause in the writ petition

extracted hereinabove and the interlocutory order, it is to be

noted that by virtue of the interim order, the implementation,

execution and operation of the order dated 05.10.2020

whereby the property in question had been auctioned was

stayed, directing the parties to maintain status quo qua the

property in question.



5.    However, it seems that the respondent no. 2 – Bank/

appellant herein had executed a sale deed dated 25.02.2021

without seeking leave or permission of this Court, within a

short period of the passing of the interim order, creating a

third-party right over the property in question which has led

to the filing of the Civil Application for breach of the order.

The learned Single Judge in the judgment impugned has

clearly found the opposite party no. 2 namely the appellant –

Bank and the respondent no. 4 – purchaser guilty of breach

of the interim order passed by this Court and thus, having

committed breach of the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 2A


                             Page 3 of 8
     C/LPA/426/2026                                  ORDER DATED: 11/06/2026




of the Civil Procedure Code willfully and deliberately.


6.    While holding guilty to the appellant – Bank and the

purchaser, the learned Single Judge has also found the

respondent no. 3 namely the Special Recovery Officer of the

Bank as liable for payment of cost and a fine in lieu of

sentencing them to civil imprisonment under Order XXXIX

Rule 2A of the CPC. The cost so imposed by this Court vide

order dated 13.04.2026, which was liable to be paid within a

period of one week from the date of the order, has not been

paid so far. The result is that in case of default, the officers

of the Bank namely the Chairman/ Managing Director ,

Rajmahel, Mahesana and Mr. P. H. Sanghavi, Special

Recovery          Officer   are    required     to      undergo          simple

imprisonment for a period of one month.


7.    Mr. Dipan Desai, learned advocate appearing for the

appellant vehemently argued that there was no justification

for the learned Singe Judge to hold the Bank and its officers

as guilty of committing contempt of its order, inasmuch as,

the officers had apologized and admitted their mistakes in

the Court in the replies filed upon notices being issued by the

learned Single Judge.


                                  Page 4 of 8
     C/LPA/426/2026                         ORDER DATED: 11/06/2026




8.    However, on a query made by the Court, it is admitted

that the officers of the Bank who were found guilty of

committing contempt did not do anything to purge the

contempt.         The contempt notice issued by this Court for

execution of the sale deed creating third party rights inspite

of stay of the implementation, execution and operation of the

auction dated 05.10.2020, cannot be discharged for this

reason.       The bald plea of admitting mistake, having been

committed by the officers of the Bank in execution of the sale

deed, inspite of the stay of the implementation, execution of

the auction held on 05.10.2020 cannot be a reason for us to

find any error in the order of the learned Single Judge.



9.    Further, no indulgence can be granted to the officer of

the Bank who filed an affidavit before the learned Single

Judge denying the allegations made in the Civil Application

while reserving his rights to reply on the merits of the case. A

perusal of the reply filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2

namely the General Manager of the Bank/appellant herein

indicates that he has challenged the maintainability of the

application under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and



                              Page 5 of 8
    C/LPA/426/2026                                      ORDER DATED: 11/06/2026




further submitted that the auction of the property having

been completed on 05.10.2020, the successful bidder had

been given possession         of the auction property and the

property in question was in the possession of the bidder i.e

respondent no. 4.


10. It is also pertinent to note that there is no whisper in the

reply submitted on behalf of the respondent no. 2 as to how

and when the possession of the property in question was

handed over to the respondent no. 4, when the sale deed was

executed only after the interim order passed by this Court,

staying     effect   and   operation         of   the     auction       held      on

05.10.2020.


11. We are of the clear view that there was no question of

handing over the possession of the property in question to

the respondent no. 4 namely the purchaser, when no sale

deed had been executed prior to the interim order dated

07.01.2021 passed by this Court staying the implementation

and effect of the auction proceedings.


12. In view of the above, from the stand taken by the

respondent no. 2 in the affidavit-in-reply filed in Civil


                               Page 6 of 8
    C/LPA/426/2026                                 ORDER DATED: 11/06/2026




Application No. 1 of 2021 for breach of the order, it is

evident that though there was a statement to the effect that

there is no willful disobedience of the order passed by this

Court but the respondent no. 2 has tried to justify his action

in handing over possession to a third party namely the

respondent no. 4 who was merely an auction purchaser in the

auction      held    on   05.10.2020,        inspite   of   stay      of     the

implementation and execution of the auction, itself.


13. The willful and deliberate disobedience of the interim

order dated 07.01.2021 passed by the writ Court is evident

from the said fact itself.


14. Even otherwise, the present appeal is found to be wholly

misconceived, inasmuch as, it has not been filed on behalf of

the officers who have been found guilty for breach of the

order of this Court and have been asked to pay cost

individually in lieu of sentencing them to civil imprisonment

for a period of one month under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the

CPC.


15. The present appeal has been filed by the Bank and not

by the officers who were found guilty of contempt and is



                               Page 7 of 8
           C/LPA/426/2026                                                         ORDER DATED: 11/06/2026




    hence, liable to be dismissed as misconceived.


    16. The appeal stands dismissed, accordingly. In view of

    dismissal of main appeal, civil application is also disposed of.


                                                                               (SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )



                                                                                                    (D.N.RAY,J)
  VARSHA DESAI


Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: VARSHABEN VAGHAJIBHAI DESAI(HC01393), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 15/06/2026 17:40:03




                                                       Page 8 of 8