Allahabad High Court
SMT ZEERA DEVIversusPHOOLCHAND @ CHORE AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL
Holding
The Court held that no case for contempt is made out and dismissed the contempt application.
Summary
The High Court examined a contempt application filed by Smt Zeera Devi against Phoolchand @ Chore and others, alleging that they violated an interim order dated 20 January 2025 which directed the parties to maintain the status quo concerning agricultural land. The interim order, issued in a writ proceeding under Article 227, required the parties to refrain from harvesting the crops sown by the applicant. The applicant claimed the opposite parties harvested the crops, constituting contempt. The Court reviewed the terms of the interim order and found that the alleged conduct did not amount to a breach of that order. Consequently, the Court held that no case for contempt existed and dismissed the application as misconceived.
Issues considered
- Whether the alleged harvesting of crops by the opposite parties constitutes contempt of the interim order dated 20 January 2025.
Subjects
- contempt of court
- interim order
- status quo
- agricultural dispute
- Article 227
- civil contempt
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2969 of 2026
Smt Zeera Devi
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
Phoolchand @ Chore And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Hanuman Kinkar, Ramkinkar
Upadhyay
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :
Court No. - 9
HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.
1. The writ Court on 20.01.2025 while granting an interim order in
Matters under Article 227 No. 533 of 2025 passed following order:-
"Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Majhar Ali, learned counsel for
respondent nos. 3 and 4 and learned AGA for the State are present.
All the opposite parties may file counter affidavit within four weeks. Two
weeks thereafter is also extended in favour of learned counsel for
petitioner to prefer rejoinder affidavit, if any.
List after exchange of pleadings.
Authorities along with the parties are hereby directed to maintain status
quo as on today."
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant
was respondent in the writ petition filed by opposite party. He has
violated the order granted by writ Court and has harvested the crop sown
by the applicant.
3. From perusal of the interim order, no case for contempt is made out.
4. The contempt application is misconceived and stands dismissed.
(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)
May 5, 2026
(V. S. SINGH)
Digitally signed by :-
VIDYA SAGAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…