Rajasthan High Court
CCP/710/2024 of KAILASH CHAND SHARMA SON OF SHRI MAKKHAN LAL SHARMA Vs SMT. SUSHILA DEVI MEENA W/O LATE MAHESH KUMAR MEENA on 28 March 2026
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 710/2024 In S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 438/2009 Kailash Chand Sharma Son of Shri Makkhan Lal Sharma, Aged About 64 Years, Resident of Gram Ani(Achrol) Tehsil Amer District Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Smt. Sushila
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 710/2024
In
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 438/2009
Kailash Chand Sharma Son of Shri Makkhan Lal Sharma, Aged About 64 Years, Resident of Gram Ani(Achrol) Tehsil Amer
District Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1.
Smt. Sushila Devi Meena W/o Late Mahesh Kumar Meena, Resident of Ani National Highway Number 8 (At Present
12) PWD Chowki Ke Samne Gram Panchayat Labana Tehsil Amer District Jaipur.
2.
Ku. Priyanka Meena D/o Late Maehsh Kumar Meena, Resident of Ani National Highway Number 8 (At Present
12) PWD Chowki Ke Samne Gram Panchayat Labana Tehsil Amer District Jaipur.
3.
Ku. Monika Meena D/o Late Mahesh Kumar Meena, Resident Of Ani National Highway Number 8 (At Present
12) PWD Chowki Ke Samne Gram Panchayat Labana Tehsil Amer District Jaipur.
4.
Ku. Sonika Meena D/o Late Mahesh Kumar Meena, Resident Of Ani National Highway Number 8 (At Present
12) PWD Chowki Ke Samne Gram Panchayat Labana Tehsil Amer District Jaipur.
5.
Rahul Meena S/o Late Mahesh Mumar Meena, Resident of Ani National Highway Number 8 (At Present 12) PWD
Chowki Ke Samne Gram Panchayat Labana Tehsil Amer
6.
Vikas Meena S/o Late Mahesh Kumar Meena, Resident of Ani National Highway Number 8 (At Present 12) PWD
Chowki Ke Samne Gram Panchayat Labana Tehsil Amer
District Jaipur.
7.
Ms. Anamika Saran Peethaseen Adhikari, Additional District Court and Session Judge Serial-4 Jaipur District Jaipur.
----Respondents
[2026:RJ-JP:13084-DB]
(2 of 3)
[CCP-710/2024]
For Petitioner(s)
:
Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma
Mr. Mamraj Jat
For Respondent(s)
:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
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.
Order
28/03/2026
1. Petitioner is stated to be plaintiff-decree holder and has preferred this civil contempt petition, feeling aggrieved by disobedience of the order dated 16.02.2024 passed in S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 438/2009.
2. In the order dated 16.02.2024, on behalf of respondents No.1 to 6-contemnors, a statement was made by the learned Senior Counsel that they are ready to vacate and handover the possession of rented premises.
3. The submission of counsel for petitioner is that despite giving an undertaking, respondents No.1 to 6 have not vacated the suit premises, rather have filed an objection petition in the execution proceedings.
4. Be that as it may, the action of respondents No.1 to 6, not honoring/ abiding with the statement/undertaking furnished on their behalf by their counsel before the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 438/2009, they may be held liable for contempt and their inaction, not to vacate the suit premises, may be considered as contemptuous and willful disobedience of the undertaking but the petitioner instead of preferring a civil
(3 of 3) [CCP-710/2024] contempt before the learned Single Judge has preferred the civil contempt before the Division Bench.
5. Counsel for petitioner pointed out that civil contempt petition before the Division Bench was filed because in this contempt petition, respondent No.7, the Presiding Officer of Executing Court has also been impleaded as contemnors.
6. In our considered opinion, the practice adopted by petitioner to implead the Presiding Officer of Executing Court as party- contemnor in the contempt petition and the invoke jurisdiction of Division Bench for contempt is absolute arbitrary and unwarranted, hence, deprecated.
7. Needless to observe, petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh contempt petition before the learned Single Judge against the action/inaction of respondents No.1 to 6.
8. Counsel for petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this contempt petition with liberty to file a fresh before the learned Single Judge.
9. In view of above, instant contempt petition is hereby dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.
10. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (SUDESH BANSAL),J NITIN /6