Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 536 (RAJ)

Prakash v. Shiv Pal Singh

2007-03-13

VINEET KOTHARI

body2007
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the stay order granted on 28.4.2003 directing the parties to maintain the status quo in respect of property in question has been violated by the respondents. 3. Mr. Dhand, learned counsel appearing for the side opposite submits that firstly the stay order dated 28.4.2003 which was limited till next date was never extended by this Court. Secondly he submits that on subsequent occasion, on two applications filed by the defendant-respondents, this Court has passed the order on 6.11.2006 in the First Appeal No. 196 of 2003 wherein though the status quo order passed on 28.4.2003 has been extended till disposal of the appeal, however, it was made subject to the clarification that defendant-respondents shall be at liberty to obtain the electricity connection. He has further submitted that boring connection obtained on the agriculture land in question does not amount to violation of the status quo order. He has further brought the attention of this Court towards the fact that two suits were filed by the petitioner, one regarding his alleged claim of adoption by respondent No. 1 Smt. Ramkori and he lost in that suit and appeal against that is also pending in this Court. The another suit was filed for cancellation of sale-deed executed by said Smt. Ramkori in favour of the respondent No. 2 Shiv Pal Singh. He has submitted that said Shiv Lal Singh in pursuance of said sale-deed is in possession of the said property since long and he is free to enjoy the fruits of the said agriculture land and he has not violated the stay order of this Court. 4. Having heard the rival submissions and upon perusal of the record, this Court is of the opinion that no contempt is made out against the respondents. The respondent No. 1 Smt. Ramkori is already said to have expired and the appeal between the parties shall be decided on merit. However, this contempt petition having no force deserve to be dismissed. 5. Accordingly, this contempt petition is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******