The High Court clarifies that contempt is not maintainable in respect of old orders when certain procedural and factual barriers exist, reaffirming the established precedent from the Supreme Court and providing binding authority for subordinate courts on this issue.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | COCP/1558/2023 of M/S AMBIENCE FARMS PVT. LTD. Vs AJIT BALAJI JOSHI IAS CNR PHHC010663422023 |
| Date of Registration | 19-05-2023 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | Single Bench (Ms. Justice Nidhi Gupta) |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts within jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms law laid down by Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal (AIR 2020 SC 1496) |
| Type of Law | Contempt of Court / Civil Procedure |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that contempt proceedings are not maintainable against an order of 2009, particularly when the respondent was not a party to the original writ petition and possession was already evidenced by Rapat Roznamcha prior to the said order. The Court relied upon Supreme Court’s judgment in Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal, which clarified that once Rapat Roznamcha entry is made in favour of a party, it constitutes valid physical possession free from all encumbrances. The respondent was not taking steps to create third party rights in the disputed property, and the proposed auction had already failed. Accordingly, the contempt petition was dismissed in view of these factors and the binding Supreme Court precedent. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal and others, AIR 2020 SC 1496 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner sought initiation of contempt proceedings for alleged violation of a status quo order dated 09.11.2009 concerning possession of 2.25 acres of land. The respondent argued that possession had already been taken before the said order was passed and relied upon an official record (Rapat Roznamcha). The respondent was not a party to the original writ. The proposed auction of the property failed and no third party rights were being created. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of Punjab and Haryana High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; provides persuasive value due to reliance on Supreme Court authority |
| Follows | Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal (AIR 2020 SC 1496) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that contempt is not maintainable for an old status quo order where factual and procedural circumstances negate non-compliance (e.g., prior possession taken via Rapat Roznamcha).
- Holds that being a non-party to the main writ is critical to determining liability under contempt.
- Recognition that failure of proposed auction and absence of third party rights may influence the refusal of contempt jurisdiction.
- Lawyers should carefully assess both the timeline and parties’ status when considering contempt for violation of interim orders.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court first identified that the main basis for the contempt petition was a status quo order dated 09.11.2009 involving possession of certain land.
- The respondent countered that he was not a party to the original writ and that possession had already been taken prior to the order, evidenced by Rapat Roznamcha dated 30.09.2009.
- The respondent also argued that the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal (AIR 2020 SC 1496) clarified that once Rapat Roznamcha is entered, physical possession is considered effected and free from encumbrances.
- The Court took cognizance of the fact that the proposed auction had failed and there was no action by the respondent to create third party rights.
- The Court concluded that contempt jurisdiction could not be exercised in these circumstances as the order allegedly violated was from 2009, and considering the Supreme Court’s binding law, dismissed the petition.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Alleged violation of the status quo order dated 09.11.2009 regarding possession of 2.25 acres in Killa Nos. 560 and 565.
- Asserted that violation took place in 2023, justifying the current filing of the contempt petition.
Respondent
- Contended that contempt is not maintainable against the 2009 order.
- Submitted that prior to status quo order, possession had already been taken via Rapat Roznamcha dated 30.09.2009.
- Highlighted that respondent was not a party to the original writ.
- Relied on Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal (AIR 2020 SC 1496) for the principle regarding entries in Rapat Roznamcha.
- Stated that no third party rights were being created and proposed auction had failed.
Factual Background
The petitioner, M/s Ambience Farms Pvt. Ltd., sought contempt against the respondent for alleged disobedience of a High Court status quo order dated 09.11.2009 regarding 2.25 acres of land in Killa Nos. 560 and 565. The dispute centered around whether the respondent violated the said status quo in 2023. The respondent contended that he was not a party to the earlier writ, and possession was lawfully taken and recorded in the Rapat Roznamcha on 30.09.2009, before the order.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court discussed the effect of status quo orders and their enforceability in contempt proceedings.
- Cited and applied the principle from Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal (AIR 2020 SC 1496) that an entry in the Rapat Roznamcha constitutes conclusive proof of physical possession beyond encumbrances.
- Emphasized the importance of party status and contemporaneous factual possession at the time of the interim order.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or directions were set in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The High Court followed the clear precedent set by the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal (AIR 2020 SC 1496).