TRIPATI PATHAK Vs. B C VAIDYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicants have made a complaint to the Court that the respondents have not complied with the order dated 3-3-2004 in F. A. No. 92/04 by which this Court passed following order :

(2.) IT is submitted by the petitioners that the order dated 3-3-2004 was communicated to the Tehsildar, Damoh on 16-3-2004, but in spite of this, the tehsildar passed an order on 20-5-2004, which is in gross violation of the order dated 3-3-2004 passed by this Court and the respondents deserve to be punished.

(3.) THE facts of the case are as under : respondent No. 2 Subhash Pathak filed a civil suit for declaration, possession, mesne profits and for permanent injunction against the petitioner. The suit was contested by the parties and ultimately on 8th December, 2003, the judgment and decree was passed in favour of respondent Subhash Pathak. He was declared owner of 1/8th share in respect of properties left by his father basant Rao Pathak and was found entitled to 1/8th Share in the agricultural lands of village Damoh, Bansakala, and it was directed that the plaintiff shall be entitled to get the land partitioned under section 54, Civil Procedure Code from the Collector or any gazetted officer subordinate to the Collector deputed by him in this behalf and shall be entitled to get possession accordingly. In respect of various house properties mentioned in the decree, a preliminary decree was passed in this regard and the plaintiff was found entitled for partition by appointment of a Commissioner who shall report to the Court in respect to the shares of the parties and thereafter a final decree shall be passed.