Allahabad High Court
MUNNA PATELversusSUGNI DEVI, AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL
Holding
The Court held that no breach of the status‑quo order occurred and therefore no contempt of court was established.
Summary
The High Court of Allahabad, while hearing a contempt application filed by Munna Patel, examined an interim order dated 20 August 2024 that had stayed earlier appellate and revisional orders dated 26 February 2016 and 3 May 2024 and directed the parties to maintain status quo over a disputed property. The petitioner argued that the same relief had been granted in a related writ (Writ‑C No.20779 of 2024) concerning the same land and that a sale deed executed by the opposite party during the pendency of the writ violated the status‑quo order. The Court observed that there was no evidence of a restraining order against alienation of the property, nor any allegation that the petitioner had been dispossessed, and therefore the conditions of the status‑quo order were not breached. Consequently, the Court found no basis for a contempt proceeding. The contempt application was held to be misconceived and was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the parties violated the status‑quo order by executing a sale deed during the pendency of the writ petition.
- Whether the conduct of the opposite party amounts to contempt of the High Court’s interim order.
Subjects
- contempt of court
- status quo
- interim order
- property dispute
- mutation proceedings
- writ jurisdiction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2791 of 2026
Munna Patel
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
Sugni Devi, And Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anand Prakash Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :
Court No. - 9
HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.
1. The writ Court on 20.08.2024 while granting an interim order in Writ-C
No. 24958 of 2024 passed the following order:-
"1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has preferred the present petition inter alia with the
following prayer:-
"I Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorarti
call for original record and quash the impugned orders dated
26.02.2016 and 3.5.2024 respectively passed by respondents.
II. Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
directing and commanding the respondents to not to give
effect to the impugned orders dated 29.02.2016 and
03.05.2024 respectively passed by the respondents, treating
that the impugned orders have never been passed in
accordance with law and petitioners has become Bhumidhar
of disputed land by virtue of registered sale deed dated
10.12.2010 executed by late Sahdei wife of late Sukku and
her legal heir after receiving consideration has been rightly
mutated in the revenue record in accordance with law."
3. It is argued by counsel for the petitioner that since controversy
involved in the present case is identical to a case being Writ-C No.20779
of 2024 (Smt. Sahbai Alias Sahdeir Dead Vs. State of U.P. and 6 Others)
in which interim order was granted by the coordinate Bench of this Court
vide order dated 2.7.2024. Hence, the petitioner is also entitled for the
CAPL No. 2791 of 2026
2
same relief.
3. The order dated 2.7.2024, passed in Writ-C No.20779 of 2024 (Smt.
Sahbai Alias Sahdeir Dead Vs. State of U.P. and 6 Others) is quoted as
under:-
"1. Heard Sri A.P. Srivastava, Learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1,
2, 3 and 4 and Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned
counsel for respondent no. 7.
2. The orders passed in mutation proceedings have been
challenged in the present writ petition. It is contended that
initially the Naib Tehsildar had passed an order in the year
2009 in favour of the petitioner holding that the will
produced by other side could not be proved beyond suspicion
and that the first court has no jurisdiction to decide the
disputed question as regards successiorship. The said order
was challenged in the appeal by the respondent no. 5. The
Additional District Magistrate (Second) Varanasi by the
impugned order dated 26.02.2016 has set aside the same,
which order has been further affirmed in revision by the
Additional Commissioner, Administration, Varanasi by
second order impugned dated 03.05.2024 dismissing the
revision preferred by the petitioner.
3. Submission is that the appellate and revisional authorities
have entered into an adjudication which was beyond their
competence and neither adjudication of relationship of the
parties nor validity of divorce or marriage or successiorship
was under their competence. As such disputed questions
could be decided only in regular proceedings, which have not
yet been initiated by the either side.
4. The matter requires consideration.
5. Issue notice to respondent nos. 5 and 6 returnable within
six weeks. Steps be taken by registered post acknowledgment
due within ten days.
6. Respondents are granted six weeks' time to file counter
affidavit. Petitioner will have two weeks thereafter to file
rejoinder affidavit, if any.
7. List on 04.09.2024 before the appropriate Bench.
8. Till the next date of listing, effect and operation of the
impugned orders dated 26.02.2016 and 03.05.2024
respectively passed in appeal and revision shall remain
stayed and the parties shall maintain status quo in respect of
the nature and possession over the property in dispute. "
CAPL No. 2791 of 2026
3
4. Learned Standing counsel has accepted notice on behalf of State-
respondents.
5. Issue notice to respondent nos.6 & 7.
6. All the respondents are granted six weeks time to file counter affidavit.
Two weeks', thereafter is granted to the petitioner to file rejoinder
affidavit.
7. List and connect this petition along with the record of Writ-C No.20779
of 2024 on 09.12.2024.
8. Till the next date of listing, effect and operation of the impugned orders
dated 26.02.2016 and 03.05.2024 respectively passed in appeal and
revision shall remain stayed and the parties shall maintain status quo in
respect of the nature and possession over the property in dispute."
2. From perusal of the order, it is clear that order passed in appeal and
revision was stayed by writ Court and further the Court had directed the
parties to maintain status quo.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the sale-deed has been
executed by opposite party during pendency of the writ petition.
4. This Court finds that there is no restrain order as regards alienation of the
property and there is no averment that applicant has been dispossessed from
the property in dispute and order of status quo has been violated.
5. No case for contempt is made out at this stage.
6. The contempt application is misconceived and stands dismissed.
May 6, 2026
(V. S. SINGH)
(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
VIDYA SAGAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…