Meghalaya High Court
Cont.Cas(C)/39/2026 of JAMES SYIEMIONG Vs ESEKIEL S MOND on 27 July 2026
No.03 Regular List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG Cont.Cas(C). No. 39 of 2026 Date of Decision: 27.07.2026 Shri. James Syiemiong, S/o Smti. Euphrasia Syiemiong, R/o Chapel Road, Qualapaty Block-1, Shillong, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya. …Petitioner -Versus- Shri. Esekiel S
Serial No.03
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
Cont.Cas(C). No. 39 of 2026
Date of Decision: 27.07.2026
Shri. James Syiemiong,
S/o Smti. Euphrasia Syiemiong,
R/o Chapel Road, Qualapaty Block-1,
Shillong, East Khasi Hills District,
Meghalaya.
…Petitioner
-Versus-
Shri. Esekiel S Mond,
Bailiff District Council Court,
S/o (L) S. Swer,
R/o Mawlai Nongkwar, Block-13,
East Khasi Hills District,
Meghalaya-793017.
…Respondent
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.S.Thangkhiew, Judge Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Applicant(s) :
Mr. P.Yobin, Adv.
For the Respondent(s)
:
-
i)
Whether approved for reporting in
Yes/No
Law journals etc:
ii)
Whether approved for publication
Yes/No
in press:
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard Mr. P.Yobin, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. This contempt application alleges contempt of this Court’s order dated 08-06-2026, passed in WP(C). No. 252 of 2026, with regard to the staying of an execution proceeding for three days to allow the petitioner to put in an application for stay of the proceeding.
3. Mr. P.Yobin, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on consideration of the facts, this Court had allowed the petitioner three days’ time to put in an application before the Trial Cout, but however, though the order was passed on 08-06-2026 itself, and the same was brought to the knowledge of the respondent on the same day, the execution proceedings had already commenced. He further submits that as the order was uploaded at 5.30 p.m., as such, a physical copy of the same was not available at that point of time to be presented.
4. On hearing the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court sees that the matter in question had been taken up on the express prayer of the petitioner to allow three days’ time to put in an application. However, it appears that though orders were passed, the execution proceedings had already commenced. In these circumstances, to discern as to whether the order was communicated or that any contempt has been made out before this Court at this stage is difficult.
5. Accordingly, contempt is not entertained and the matter stands closed and disposed of and the petitioner is at liberty to seek other legal remedy before the Trial Court.
Judge
2026:MLHC:762 Digitally signed by SAMANTHA ANNA LIYA RYNJAH Date: 2026.07.27 16:16:12 IST Signature Not Verified