Allahabad High Court

SMT. PHEKUIversusSHRI SHARAD CHAUDHARY

Decided: 4 May 2026
Bench: ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL

Holding

The contempt application is dismissed as the pending civil suit precludes the court from exercising jurisdiction under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

Summary

Smt. Phekui filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to comply with an order dated 30‑01‑2019 under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The High Court disposed of the writ petition at the admission stage, directing the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority for compliance. The petitioner later filed a contempt application alleging non‑compliance with the order. The State produced an affidavit stating that a civil suit (Case No. 49 of 2026) concerning the same land was pending, and therefore the officer could not act. The Court held that, because a civil suit on the same issue was pending, it could not entertain the contempt application under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act as that would amount to deciding the suit. Consequently, the contempt application was dismissed and the contempt notice discharged, with the Court directing the petitioner to approach the civil court for relief.

Issues considered

Whether a contempt proceeding can be instituted when a civil suit concerning the same subject matter is pending.
Whether the court can issue a direction under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act to enforce an order under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 while a civil suit is pending.

Legislation cited

Contempt of Courts Act, 1961 — s. 12
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 24

Subjects

contempt of court
mandamus
civil suit pending
Section 24 U.P. Revenue Code
Section 12 Contempt of Courts Act
enforcement of revenue order
jurisdiction

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 7178 of 2025

Smt. Phekui
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

Shri Sharad Chaudhary
.....Opposite
Party(s)

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

Court No. - 9
HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

1. The writ Court on 16.07.2025 while disposing of Writ-C No. 22555 of
2025 passed the following order:-

"1. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:-

"Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus direct the
respondents to provide the possession to the petitioner in the land in
dispute in pursuance to the order dated 30.01.2019 proceeding Under
Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, within stipulated period."

2. The petitioner claims that an order under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006 was passed way back in 2019 but the same has not been
complied with.

3. As no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending,
the writ petition is being disposed of, at the admission stage, without
calling for counter affidavit or issuing notice to private respondents, the
petitioner is directed to move an application before respondent No.2 for
compliance of the said order and in case there are no legal impediment,
the officer concerned shall proceed with the mater and decide the same in
accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of
production of certified copy of this order.

4. With the aforesaid directions, writ petition stands disposed of.
CAPL No. 7178 of 2025
2

5. It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated the matter on
merits."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings under
Section 24 has been decided in his favour on 30.01.2019 but the order under
Section 24 has not been complied with.

3. The State has filed it affidavit on 24.03.2026, wherein, in paragraph nos.
11 and 12, it has been stated that a civil suit is pending before the court of
the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ballia, being Case No. 49 of 2026 in
regard to Gata No. 323. It is further added that as the suit for removal of
encroachment is pending consideration, the officer could not proceed in the
matter.

4. This Court finds that as civil suit is pending consideration, no direction
can be issued while exercising jurisdiction under Section 12 of the Contempt
of Courts Act as it amounts to decide the suit in proceedings under Section
12.

5. The contempt application is misconceived, at this stage, and stands
dismissed.

6. Contempt notice stands discharged.

7. However, it is open to the applicant to approach the civil court and get the
suit decided.

(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)
May 5, 2026
A. V. Singh

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…