27-Year-Old Status Quo Order Still Binding; Rajasthan High Court Holds Respondents Guilty Of Contempt
The Rajasthan High Court has held that pendency of appeal since 1999, and respondents' claim that they could not remain in regular touch with the lawyers due to long pendency, was not an acceptable justification to undertake construction on a property, in relation to which there was a subsisting direction of maintaining status quo. While holding the respondents guilty of contempt of court...
The Rajasthan High Court has held that pendency of appeal since 1999, and respondents' claim that they could not remain in regular touch with the lawyers due to long pendency, was not an acceptable justification to undertake construction on a property, in relation to which there was a subsisting direction of maintaining status quo.
While holding the respondents guilty of contempt of court for wilful disobedience of the order, the bench of Justice Sandeep Shah observed that irrespective of the progress of the appeal, the parties were obligated to comply with the interim order.
For context, the Court was hearing a contempt petition in which it was alleged that in 1999, the Court had ordered to maintain status quo in relation to the concerned property in question. It was highlighted that the interim direction was still in operation, but the respondents had raised construction over the plot, thereby violating the Court's directions.
On the contrary, it was argued by the respondents that a room was already existing on the site, and owing to the passage of time, it was in a dilapidated condition for which only the repair work was undertaken bonafidely, without any intention to violate the interim order.
Further, it was submitted that since no effective proceedings had taken place in the matter, prior to 2020, respondents could not remain in regular touch with the counsel. It was prayed that the alleged violation be viewed leniently.
After hearing the contention, the Court highlighted that no interim application was filed by the respondents, seeking permission of the court for any such construction or renovations.
“The plea that the respondents could not remain in regular touch with their counsel, owing to the absence of effective proceedings in the second appeal, cannot be accepted as a justification for disregarding an order of this Court which continued to remain operative. The obligation to comply with the interim order was binding upon the parties irrespective of the progress of the appeal.”
Accordingly, the respondents were held guilty of contempt of court.