Allahabad High Court
JAGATRAJversusRAMA SHANKAR AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL
Holding
The contempt application was dismissed as no case for contempt was made out.
Summary
The father of the applicant filed a writ petition seeking a status‑quo order on 23 May 2003 to restrain construction on a disputed property. The opposite parties allegedly proceeded with construction, prompting a contempt application that also named the District Inspector of Schools, Lalitpur as a respondent. The court observed that the District Inspector was not a party to the original writ petition and that the contempt petition failed to specifically allege who violated the interim order. Since no specific breach was identified, the court held that no case for contempt was made out. Consequently, the contempt application was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether a contempt proceeding can be instituted against a person who was not a party to the original writ petition
- Whether a specific averment of violation of the interim order is required to sustain a contempt petition
Subjects
- contempt
- status quo
- property dispute
- writ petition
- interim order
- jurisdiction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 3017 of 2026
Jagatraj
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
Rama Shankar And 4 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Narsingh Pandey, Rama Shankar
Upadhyay
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :
Court No. - 9
HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.
1. In the writ petition filed by father of the applicant an order of status quo
was passed by the writ Court on 23.5.2003. According to applicant, the
opposite parties are raising construction over the disputed property.
2. District Inspector of Schools, Lalitpur has been arrayed as opposite
party no. 1 in contempt proceedings. This Court finds that in the writ
petition, filed by father of the applicant, the District Inspector of Schools,
Lalitpur is not a party. In paragraph no. 10 of contempt application it has
been averred that all the respondents are raising construction over the
property in dispute.
3. There is no specific averment with regard to the person, who had
violated the interim order granted by the writ Court. No case for contempt
is made out.
4. Contempt application stands dismissed.
(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)
May 6, 2026
Shekhar
Digitally signed by :-
SHASHI SHEKHAR PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…