SHANKAR LALversusINDRAJEET SINGH AND 7 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

       CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 6510 of 2026

Shankar Lal
                                                                    .....Applicant(s)
                                      Versus
Indrajeet Singh And 7 Others
                                                                        .....Opposite
                                                                              Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                        :   Anuruddh Chaturvedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                   :

Court No. - 53
                     HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

 1. The present contempt application has been preferred alleging willful
defiance of the order dated 07.05.2025 passed in Writ-B No. 1761 of 2025,
order whereof is quoted hereinunder.-

     "A perusal of the impugned judgement passed by the Trial Court and the
     First Appellate Court show that prima facie the legatee under the Will of
     the late Baledeen being not related by blood to the testator, the important
     question whether the Will was proved after removal of all suspicious
     circumstances surrounding it, was not at all examined. Also, the Will does
     not seem to have been proved by unequivocal evidence of the marginal
     witnesses. The Commissioner, who heard the First Appeal, has written
     prima facie a mechanically worded judgment, perfunctorily affirming the
     Trial Court. The Board of Revenue did not consider the mode of the proof
     of the Will or the legatee's burden to prove the Will by explaining away
     all suspicious circumstances given the fact that the Will was executed
     derogating from the interest of blood relatives in favour of a stranger.
     A prima facie case is made out.
     Admit.
     Issue notice.
     Notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 4 is accepted by Mr. Girijesh
     Kumar Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and that on
     behalf of respondent no. 5 by Mr. Azad Rai, Advocate. Both the learned
     counsel for the respondents are granted two weeks time to file a counter
     affidavit.
     Steps to serve respondent nos. 6 and 7 shall be taken by RPAD within
     three days.
     List for orders on 21.05.2025 along with a report regarding service and
     the postal track attached. The office shall also put in a report regarding
                                                                 CAPL No. 6510 of 2026
                                   2

     status of pleadings.
     Order on Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 1 of 2025
     Issue notice.
     There shall be an ad interim stay of operation of the decree dated
     12.09.2024 passed by the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Prayagraj and the
     judgement of the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Faizabad
     Division, Faizabad rendered in appeal as well as the Trial Court's
     judgement dated 30.04.2001 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate,
     Sultanpur, District Sultanpur. It is further ordered that status quo shall be
     maintained by both parties regarding possession, nature and character of
     the suit property, also until further orders.
     Let this order be communicated to the Sub Divisional Magistrate,
     Sultanpur, District Sultanpur through the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
     Sultanpur by the Registrar (Compliance) within 24 hours."

2. The applicant happens to be the respondent no. 6 in Writ-B No. 1761 of
2025 and so far as the opposite parties are concerned, in particular, opposite
party no. 8, he happens to be the petitioner in the said writ petition 1/1.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that though the applicant
happened to be the respondent in the said writ petition and the orders dated
12.09.2024 passed by Board of Revenue, Prayagraj and the judgment of the
Additional Commissioner (Administration), Faizabad Division, Faizabad,
rendered in appeal as well as the trial court judgment dated 30.04.2001
passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sultanpur, District Sulthanpur was
stayed and status quo was directed to be maintained by both the parties
regarding possession, nature and the character of the suit property until
further orders but in view of the report which is annexed as Annexure- 7 at
page 60 relevant extract at page 61, the applicant was ploughing and
harvesting the agricultural land prior to passing of the order of the writ court.
Thus, the order of status quo would not come in the way of the applicant in
ploughing the field.

3. In the opinion of the Court, the judgment and order which were passed in
favour of the applicant was stayed and status quo was directed to be
maintained with respect to possession, nature and character of the suit
property. This Court deems it appropriate that the applicant may move an
appropriate clarification/modification application in the pending writ petition
in that regard.

4. Prima facie, there is no willful defiance.
                                                                                             CAPL No. 6510 of 2026
                                                                    3


                                    5. Accordingly, the present contempt application is consigned to record
                                    leaving it open for the applicant to move an appropriate application as
                                    permissible and advisable under law.

                                    6. Any observations made in the present order are only confined to the
                                    present contempt application and the orders to be passed, if any application
                                    is preferred by the applicant shall not be governed by the same.

                                    September 18, 2026
                                    Rajesh
                                                                                            (Vikas Budhwar,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
RAJESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad