Allahabad High Court

FATEH BAHADURversusARUN KUMAR GIRI, SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE AND 11 OTHERS

Decided: 17 May 2026
Bench: KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA

Holding

A contempt application is not the appropriate remedy; the appropriate remedy is an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A CPC.

Summary

The applicant alleged that the status quo order issued in Second Appeal No. 640 of 2004 was violated by the opposite party. The question before the court was whether a contempt petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was the appropriate remedy. The court noted that the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the CPC remain in force even while a second appeal is pending. It held that filing a separate contempt application in such circumstances is not the correct procedural route. Consequently, the contempt application was disposed of without addressing the merits. The applicant was given liberty to file an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A CPC in the pending appeal, after serving notice on the opposite side.

Issues considered

Whether a violation of a status quo order during pendency of a second appeal can be remedied by a contempt petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Whether Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the CPC provides the appropriate remedy for such alleged violations.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order XXXIX Rule 2-A
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — s. Section 12

Subjects

Contempt of Courts Act
Civil Procedure Code
Status quo order
Second appeal
Procedural law

Judgment

                                               HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                                                CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 3256 of 2026

                                    Fateh Bahadur
                                                                                               .....Applicant(s)
                                                                      Versus

                                    Arun Kumar Giri, Sub Divisional Magistrate and
                                    11 others                                                     .....Opposite
                                                                                                        Party(s)

                                    Counsel for Applicant(s)                   :   Ashok Kumar Singh
                                    Counsel for Opposite Party(s)              :

                                    Court No. - 9
                                                     HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

                                    1. It is alleged that order of status quo passed in Second Appeal No.640 of
                                    2004, which is alleged to be pending has been violated by the other side.
                                    The provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 2-A CPC continue to subsist even
                                    during pendency of second appeal and in such matters, filing of a separate
                                    contempt application under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act,
                                    1971 may not be an appropriate remedy.

                                    2. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the contention raised,
                                    this contempt application is disposed of with liberty to the applicant to
                                    file an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A CPC in the pending
                                    second appeal, after serving its copy on the other side.



                                                                                       (Kshitij Shailendra,J.)
                                    May 18, 2026
                                    Jyotsana




Digitally signed by :-
JYOTSANA SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…