P L D 2009 Supreme Court 380 -Art. 204---Contempt of Court Act (LXIV of 1976), Ss.3/4---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX of R.2(3)---Contempt of Court---High Court had issued contempt notices to the accused vide impugned order---Sale-deed was executed in favour of respondents on a date when no stay order was in the field---Accused being not a party in the transaction, contempt petition could not have been filed against them and High Court had erred in issuing notices to them and the lawyers who remained associated with the transaction of sale---Respondent who had no order in his favour had no locus standi to file the contempt petition---Under sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 of O. XXXIX, C.P.L. no one could be held guilty of the disobedience of an order, except the person to whom the order was directed and the Court had no jurisdiction to initiate contempt of Court proceedings against whom no order was made---Contempt petition against accused, therefore, was not maintainable and the impugned order was set aside---Appeal was allowed accordingly.
Posted on: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 14:52:56 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015