SHAHANA IRAQUI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Najmul Hodda, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General No. 3, for the Opposite Parties.

(2.) THE petitioner claims that contempt proceeding be initiated against opposite party -officials of the State Government for wilfully violating the judgment and decree dated 22.9.1998 passed by Munsif -II, Kishanganj in Title Suit No. 34 of 1996 and other orders passed pursuant to the same.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the aforesaid judgment and decree of the Court the opposite parties have wilfully violated the same by putting up a lock over the said property contrary to the restraint order issued by the trial court. Learned counsel also sought to support the stand of approaching this Court while invoking its contempt jurisdiction by relying upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Limited through Chairman vs. Sheo Shankar Mishra: 1995(2) PLJR 875, in para -15 of which it has been laid down that pendency of the execution case is no bar to the initiation of the contempt. In the said circumstances, learned counsel submits that by not permitting the petitioner to exercise his rights duly declared by the Courts for the disputed land in question they have committed contempt and are still continuing with the same.