Allahabad High Court
CHANDRA KUMAR MISHRAversusMINAKSHI BANSAL, CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), CITY
- Decided
- Bench
- ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL
Holding
The contempt application is dismissed as substantial compliance with the court's direction has been demonstrated.
Summary
The applicant, Chandra Kumar Mishra, filed a contempt application alleging that the Civil Judge (Junior Division) in Varanasi failed to decide Execution Case No. 11 of 2003 within the period directed by the High Court on 4 April 2025. The High Court had ordered the judge to hear applications filed under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC by the defendants and to dispose of the matter within four months of receiving the certified copy of the order. A report indicated that the matter had been listed multiple times and a final hearing was fixed for 21 April 2026. When questioned, the applicant’s counsel could not confirm whether the decision had been rendered. The Court observed that substantial compliance had occurred, as the final hearing date had passed, and therefore dismissed the contempt application, while directing the officer to decide the pending application promptly if it remained undecided. The Court clarified that it had not adjudicated the merits of the underlying execution case.
Issues considered
- Whether the failure to decide the execution case within the period prescribed by the High Court amounts to contempt of court.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order IX Rule 13
Subjects
- contempt of court
- Civil Procedure Code
- Order IX Rule 13
- execution decree
- judicial direction
- compliance
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2153 of 2026
Chandra Kumar Mishra
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
Minakshi Bansal, Civil Judge (Junior Division),
City .....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shailesh Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :
Court No. - 9
HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.
1. The writ Court on 4.4.2025 while disposing of Matters Under Article
227 No. 1326 of 2025 had passed the following order;
"This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:-
"(a) direct the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), City, Varanasi to
decide the execution case no. 11 of 2003 (Chandra Kumar Mishra Vs.
Bharat Tiwari and others), within stipulated period as directed by this
Hon'ble Court."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit filed by the decree
holder/petitioner was decreed in the year 2002 and an Execution Case
No.11 of 2003 has been filed which is pending consideration. According
to him, an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC has been filed by
defendant no.1 in the year 2017 and by defendant no.2 in the year 2022.
As no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending, or
calling for counter affidavit or issuing notice to the private respondents,
the matter is being disposed of, at the admission stage, with a direction
upon Civil Judge (Junior Division), City, Varanasi to proceed with the
application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC filed by defendants no.1 and 2
and the decide the same, after hearing all the concerned parties, strictly in
accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of four
months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
CAPL No. 2153 of 2026
2
With the aforesaid direction, present writ petition stands disposed of.
It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated the case on merit."
2. The writ Court had required the opposite party to conclude the
proceedings under Order IX Rule 13 CPC.
3. The report sent by the officer concerned on 15.4.2026 to the Registrar
General has been placed before the Court. From perusal of the said report,
it transpires that the matter has been listed on three occasions before the
officer concerned and matter has been fixed for 21.4.2026 for final
hearing.
4. Today, when the Court inquired the fate of application filed under
Order IX Rule 13 CPC, applicant's counsel has stated that he is not aware
of the said fact as he has tried to contact his client but call has remained
unattended.
5. This Court finds that substantial compliance has been done by the
opposite party as date fixed for final hearing was 21.4.2026 and now
matter must have been decided by the court concerned.
6. In view of the said fact, contempt application stands dismissed.
However, in case, the said application is not decided till date, the officer
concerned shall make every endeavour to decide the same, in accordance
with law, as early as possible.
(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)
May 7, 2026
Shekhar
Digitally signed by :-
SHASHI SHEKHAR PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…