Allahabad High Court
INDRAJEETversusSHARDA PRASAD AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA
Holding
The High Court held that it will not entertain contempt proceedings against the opposite parties for alleged violation of its interim status‑quo order, directing the applicant to seek appropriate stay or vacation remedies in the civil court.
Summary
The applicant filed a contempt application alleging that the opposite parties willfully disobeyed the High Court's interim status‑quo order dated 06.02.2025 in Writ‑B No. 4448/2024. The applicant claimed that, despite the court’s direction, the opposite parties instituted a civil suit (O.S. No. 54 of 2026) and obtained an ex‑parte ad‑interim injunction on 06.02.2026, which allegedly violated both the writ and civil court orders and led to the cutting of crops on the disputed plot. The Court examined the record and noted that the civil suit and its injunction were instituted after the status‑quo order, and that the appropriate remedy for the applicant is to seek a stay or vacation of the injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the CPC. The Court declined to entertain a contempt proceeding against the opposite parties, holding that it would be inappropriate to adjudicate the validity of the civil injunction in a contempt proceeding. It directed the applicant to pursue the appropriate stay/vacation applications before the civil court and the writ court, and disposed of the contempt application.
Issues considered
- Whether the opposite parties' filing of a civil suit and obtaining an ex‑parte interim injunction amounts to contempt of the High Court's interim status‑quo order.
- Whether the High Court can entertain contempt proceedings to enforce its status‑quo order in light of a subsequent civil injunction.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order XXXIX Rule 4
- Contempt of Courts Act
- U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act — s. 48
Subjects
- contempt of court
- status quo
- interim injunction
- civil suit
- stay of proceedings
- vacating order
- U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act
- Civil Procedure Code
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 3302 of 2026
Indrajeet
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
Sharda Prasad And 4 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pramod Kumar Singh, Tripathi
B.G.Bhai
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :
Court No. - 9
HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant.
2. This application has been filed alleging wilful and deliberate
disobedience of the order dated 06.02.2025 passed in Writ-B No. 4448 of
2024.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant filed Writ-
B No. 2785 of 2024, at the stage when a revision under Section 48 of U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act was pending before the Deputy Director
Consolidation and while disposing of the writ petition, direction was
issued to decide the revision within one month. Simultaneously, an
interim protection was granted restraining creation of third party rights
and maintenance of status quo on the spot. The said order was passed on
22.07.2024, whereafter the Deputy Director of Consolidation decided the
revision on 21.09.2024 remanding the matter to the Consolidation Officer,
Etawah and direction for maintenance of status quo as regards nature and
possession on the spot was maintained.
4. Submission is that the order of D.D.C. was challenged by the opposite
parties No. 1 and 2 by filing Writ-B No. 4448 of 2024 in which, further
proceedings pending before the Consolidation Officer have been stayed
on 06.02.2025. The petition, was later, on dismissed for want of
prosecution on 17.04.2025, however, the order was recalled on
18.08.2025, writ petition was restored and interim order is being extended
CAPL No. 3302 of 2026
2
from time to time.
5. Submission is that the writ petition is pending and interim order is
being extended and, in the meantime, the status of the plot has been
changed in terms of cutting of crops which had been sown and grown by
the applicant. Learned counsel has referred to various reports submitted
by the revenue authorities as well as police authorities indicating that the
applicant has always been in actual and physical possession over the
property. Reference of some criminal proceedings has also been made.
6. It is further submitted that by making concealment of all the
proceedings, the opposite parties no. 1 and 2 have filed a civil suit, being
O.S. No. 54 of 2026 and have obtained an ex-parte ad-interim injunction
order on 06.02.2026 wherein also, direction for maintenance of status quo
has been passed. It is, therefore, submitted that not only the orders of the
writ court but also the civil court have been violated and, therefore, the
opposite parties no. 1 and 2 are in contempt.
7. I have thoroughly gone through the record of proceedings and I find
that though direction for maintenance of status quo was issued in the writ
proceedings, later on, rightly or wrongly a civil suit has been instituted in
which there is a clear injunction order in favour of opposite parties no. 1
and 2 and the applicant herein has been restrained from causing
interference in the agricultural activities being undertaken by the plaintiffs
and from damaging the crops and further maintaining the status quo.
8. This Court, therefore, in contempt proceedings, does not deem it
appropriate to examine validity of the interim injunction order dated
06.02.2026 and even if the submissions made by the counsel for the
applicant to the effect that civil suit is not maintainable and the injunction
order has been obtained by concealment of facts, the Court is of the view
that the applicant has a remedy of filing stay vacation application under
Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC.
9. Such an application has already been filed as Paper 16-C(2), appended
at Page-144 of the paper book, wherein passing of various orders by the
writ court and other authorities has been taken a ground for vacating the
ex-parte ad-interim injunction in terms of Rule 4 of Order XXXIX CPC.
CAPL No. 3302 of 2026
3
It appears that the injunction application 7-C is still pending
consideration.
10. In order to call upon the opposite parties to face these contempt
proceedings, this Court shall have to arrive at a conclusion that they have
deliberately disobeyed the orders passed by this Court. When the orders
of status quo were passed, the civil suit was not in existence. Considering
two separate parts of the ex-parte ad-interim order passed by this Court, it
would not be appropriate for this Court to examine the question of
violation of an interim order of status quo passed by this Court in separate
proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act.
11. It is open for the applicant to bring everything which he relies upon in
pending writ petition wherein the order of status quo is being extended
from time to time and to seek vacation thereof in the light of subsequent
developments.
12. It is also open for the applicant to press application for vacation of ex-
parte ad-interim injunction which, if pressed, shall be decided by the civil
Court concerned at the earliest on its own merits.
13. The application is disposed of giving liberty to the applicant to avail
remedies as already noted above.
(Kshitij Shailendra,J.)
May 18, 2026
AKShukla/-
Digitally signed by :-
ANIL KUMAR SHUKLA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…