ASHUTOSH SHARMA Vs. MANSI SAHAI AND OTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the instant petition, constituted under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1972 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners ventilate affording, of, relief, of the respondents being in consonance therewith hence dealt, (i) given theirs willfully, intentionally and deliberately omitting, to comply with the orders pronounced by this Court, in CWP No. 6819 of 2014. The genesis of the alleged infractions is embodied in a pronouncement recorded on 17.10.1987, by this Court in OMP No.392 of 1987, the relevant apt portion whereof stands extracted hereinafter:-

(2.) A reading of the afore extracted pronouncement recorded, upon, the aforesaid OMP, brings to the fore qua disbursement(s) of relevant amounts amongst the Bhojakis, of, the temple concerned, being mandated to occur in accordance with the scheme formulated, by the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur.

(3.) Be that as it may, Civil suit No. 117/1 of 09/87, was, dismissed for default on 4.7.2011, and, was restored on 19.05.2015. The interregnum, inter se the dismissal in default of the apposite civil suit, and, its coming to be restored, also per se comprises an apt period, wherewithin, the orders pronounced upon OMP No.392 of 1987, remained obviously hence not in force, nor were binding upon the contesting parties, to the apposite lis. Before proceeding to dwell, upon, the commission of contempt, if any, by the purported contemners/respondents herein, the imperative fact, which is enjoined to be borne in mind, (a) is of as aforestated the longevity of the apposite scheme, whereto reverence stood meted by this Court, in making a pronouncement, upon OMP No. 392 of 1987, rather holding longevity only upto 15 years, (b) and also qua the factum, of its, in the interregnum inter se the dismissal in default of the apposite Civil Suit, and, upto its restoration, its obviously holding no force, (c) ultimately, of, the innate spirit, of, the orders rendered upon CWP No.6819 of 2014, is, also enjoined to be incisively discerned, (d) significantly, when mandate thereof is alleged to be intentionally infringed. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid factum rather would aid this Court, in coming to a conclusion qua any purported deviations or any purported intentional infringements thereof, hence emanating, whereupon alone the purported contemners/respondents hence would render themselves amenable to face action, under the Contempt of Courts Act. Obviously, thereupon, it is apt for this Court, to hereinafter extract, the relevant portion of the orders, pronounced, by this Court, upon CWP No.6819 of 2014:-