# Baquar Husain Zaidi v. Safdar Husain

- **Citation:** (2021) 2 ILRA 352
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-02-02
- **Case number:** Contempt No. 240 of 2021
- **Bench:** Abdul Moin
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/baquar-husain-zaidi-v-safdar-husain-46749
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971-Section
10
r/w
12-application-initiation
of
contempt proceedings for non-compliance
of the order- the board of revenue passed
order of status quo which have been
violated by the respondents-court declines
to
issue
notice
in
the
contempt
proceedings as applicant can avail other
alternate
remedy
as
available
in
Manual(Uttar
Pradesh
Revenue
Court
Manual) under the provision of Chapter
43 Clause 460-clause 460 clearly provides
that any decree or order passed under the
provision of the Code, 2006 can be
executed as per the procedure prescribed
in Chapter 5 of the Manual.(Para 1 to 20)

The petition is dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:-

E. Bapanaiah Vs K.S. Raju (2015) 1 SCC 451

## Text

352 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the date of production of certified copy of
this order on priority basis.

20. The writ petition is partly
allowed in the aforesaid terms. No order as
to costs.
----------
(2021)02ILR A352
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 02.02.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

Contempt No. 240 of 2021

Baquar Husain Zaidi ...Applicant
Versus
Safdar Husain ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Pradeep Kumar Tiwari, Varun Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
-----

A. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971-Section
10
r/w
12-application-initiation
of
contempt proceedings for non-compliance
of the order- the board of revenue passed
order of status quo which have been
violated by the respondents-court declines
to
issue
notice
in
the
contempt
proceedings as applicant can avail other
alternate
remedy
as
available
in
Manual(Uttar
Pradesh
Revenue
Court
Manual) under the provision of Chapter
43 Clause 460-clause 460 clearly provides
that any decree or order passed under the
provision of the Code, 2006 can be
executed as per the procedure prescribed
in Chapter 5 of the Manual.(Para 1 to 20)

The petition is dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:-

E. Bapanaiah Vs K.S. Raju (2015) 1 SCC 451
(Delivered by Hon'ble Abdul Moin, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri H.K. Bhatt, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

2. The present contempt petition has
been filed under Section 10 read with
Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act,
1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 1971')
praying
for
initiation
of
contempt
proceedings for the non compliance of the
orders dated 13.12.2017 and 11.02.2020
passed by Board of Revenue, Lucknow in
Revision No.2060 of 2017 (Safdar Husain
vs. Atahar Husain & others), under Section
209
of
Land
Revenue
Act,
1901
(hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1901").

3. It is contended that the Board of
Revenue had passed orders of status quo
which have been violated by the respondent
herein and thus, it is prayed that the
contempt proceedings be initiated against
the respondent.

4. A question before this Court would
be as to whether the present contempt
petition filed under Section 10 of the Act,
1971 praying for initiation of contempt
proceedings against an order passed by the
Board of Revenue would be maintainable.
for deciding this question, the Court has
taken the assistance of Sri. H.K.Bhatt,
learned Additional Chief Standing counsel.

5. The Apex Court in the case of E.
Bapanaiah vs. K.S. Raju reported in
(2015) 1 SCC 451, has held as under:-

"25. Powers of the High Courts to
punish for contempt including the powers
to punish for contempt of itself flow from
Article 215 of the Constitution of India.
Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act,
2 All. Baquar Husain Zaidi Vs. Safdar Husain
353
1971 empowers the High Courts to punish
contempts of its subordinate courts which
reads as under: -

"10. Power of High Court to
punish contempts of subordinate courts. -
Every High Court shall have and exercise
the
same
jurisdiction,
powers
and
authority, in accordance with the same
procedure and practice, in respect of
contempts of courts subordinate to it as it
has and exercises in respect of contempts of
itself:

Provided that no High Court
shall take cognizance of a contempt alleged
to have been committed in respect of a
court subordinate to it where such
contempt is an offence punishable under
the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).

27. The present case relates to a
civil contempt wherein an undertaking
given to Company Law Board is breached.
Normally, the general provisions made
under the Contempt of Courts Act are not
invoked by the High Courts for forcing a
party to obey orders passed by its
subordinate courts for the simple reason
that there are provisions contained in Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 to get executed its
orders and decrees. It is settled principle of
law that where there are special law and
general law, the provisions of special law
would prevail over general law. As such, in
normal circumstances a decree holder
cannot take recourse of Contempt of Courts
Act else it is sure to throw open a floodgate
of litigation under contempt jurisdiction. It
is not the object of the Contempt of Courts
Act to make decree holders rush to the
High Courts simply for the reason that the
decree passed by the subordinate court is
not obeyed."

6. From the perusal of the aforesaid
judgment in the case of K.S. Raju (Supra),
it is apparent that the power exercised by
the High Court under Section 10 of the Act,
1971 can be exercised where there is no
provision for execution or compliance of
such orders meaning thereby that where
there is an effective remedy for enforcing
the order of court below, then the High
Court would be justified in declining to
entertain the contempt petition.

7. Being armed with the aforesaid
proposition of law, the Court now sets out
to see whether there is a remedy available
to the petitioner of having the orders passed
by the Board of Revenue complied with?

8. The orders of which contempt is
alleged, have been passed by the Board of
Revenue on a revision filed by the
petitioner under Section 209 of the Act,
1901.

8. With the promulgation of the Uttar
Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter
referred to as "Code, 2006"), in terms of
Section 230 of the Code, 2006, the
enactments specified in the first schedule of
the Code, 2006 were repealed. The first
schedule List- A at Serial No. 10 indicates
the United Provinces Land Revenue Act,
1901 meaning thereby that with the
promulgation of the Code, 2006, the Act,
1901 stood repealed.

9. A query was put to the learned
counsel for the applicant that once the
Code,
2006
was
promulgated
w.e.f
11.02.2016 and considering Section 230 of
the Code, 2006 as to how the revision
under Section 209 of the Act, 1901 would
be maintainable.

10. To the said query, learned counsel
for the applicant contends that considering
Section 231 of the Code, 2006, all cases
pending
before
the
Revenue
Court
354 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
immediately before the commencement of
the Code, 2006 have to be decided in
accordance with the provisions of the
appropriate law which would have been
applicable to them had the Code, 2006 not
been passed and thus he contends that as
the revision would fall within the ambit of
"Case Pending", it being a continuance of
the proceedings that were initiated before
the Revenue Court, consequently the said
revision could be filed and in fact was filed
considering Section 231 of the Code, 2006
under the provisions of the Act, 1901.

11.
Learned
counsel
for
the
applicant
further
contends
that
considering Section 231 of the Code,
2006, the order passed by the Board of
Revenue, alleging non compliance of
which the present contempt petition has
been filed under the provisions of the
Section 10 of the Act, 1971, being an
order passed by a Court subordinate to
the High Court and there being no other
mode for compliance of the interim order
passed by the Board of Revenue and the
same having been violated, the present
contempt petition would be maintainable.

12. For considering the argument of
the learned counsel for the applicant this
Court would have to consider the
provisions of Section 231 of the Code,
2006 which read as under:-

"
(1)
Save
as
otherwise
expressly provided in this Code, all cases
pending before the State Government or
any Revenue Court immediately before
the commencement of this Code, whether
in appeal, revision, review or otherwise,
shall be decided in accordance with the
provisions of the appropriate law, which
would have been applicable to them had
this Code not been passed.

(2) All cases pending in any civil
court
immediately
before
the
commencement of this Code which would
under this Code be exclusively triable by a
[Revenue Court] shall be disposed of by
such civil court according to the law in
force
prior
to
the
date
of
such
commencement."

13. Section 231 of the Code, 2006
clearly indicates that all cases pending
before the State Government or any
Revenue Court immediately before the
commencement of this Code, whether in
appeal, revision, review or otherwise, shall
be
decided
in
accordance
with
the
provisions of the appropriate law, which
would have been applicable to them had the
Code not been passed.

14. Section 231 of the Code, 2006
would thus be applicable on all pending
cases on the date of promulgation of the
Code, 2006 i.e as on 11.02.2016. The cases
have been dealt separately i.e whether by
way
of
appeal,
revision,
review
or
otherwise meaning thereby that in the
present case once a revision was filed by
the applicant on 13.12.2017 under Section
209 of the Act, 1901, as comes out from a
perusal of the copy of the revision which
has been filed as annexure 6 to the
contempt petition it is apparent that the
Act,
1901
stood
repealed
with
the
promulgation
of
Code,
2006
w.e.f
11.02.2016.

15. Accordingly, the next question
which arises is that when a revision had
been filed by the applicant in December,
2017 and the same was entertained,
whether wrong mentioning of the title in
the revision of it being filed under the
provisions of Section 219 of the Act, 1901
would render it liable to be dismissed ?,
2 All. Sudhir Kumar Srivastava Vs. Alok Kumar Mukherjee, The Then Sr. Registrar Of Hon'ble High Court
355

16. The said issue is no longer res
integra considering that it is settled
proposition of law that mere mentioning of
wrong provision of law in the title would
not render the said application to be
rejected rather the Board of Revenue
correctly proceeded to entertain and decide
the same and the said decision would have
to be under the provisions of Section 210 of
the Code, 2006 which is akin to Section
219 of the Act, 1901.

16. This aspect of the matter would
also be clear from the heading of the
revision filed by the applicant which itself
indicates that a revision was being filed
under the provisions of Section 219 of the
Act, 1901 along with Section 210 of the
Code, 2006.

17. The next question which arises is
as to whether when the said revision has
been entertained and an order passed, as to
whether the applicant has a remedy of
having the said order enforced.

18. For this, the Court has taken the
assistance of the provisions of the Uttar
Pradesh
Revenue
Court
Manual
(hereinafter referred to as "Manual") which
provides in Chapter 43 Clause 460 for
compliance of a decree or order passed by
the Board of Revenue under the provisions
of the Code, 2006 or rules framed under the
provisions of Code, 2006. Clause 460
clearly provides that any decree or order
passed under the provisions of the Code,
2006 can be executed as per the procedure
prescribed in Chapter 5 of the Manual.

19. Consequently, considering the law
laid down by the Apex Court in the case of
K.S.Raju (supra) as well as the provisions
of Chapter 43 Clause 460 it is apparent that
the applicant would have a remedy of
having the orders dated 13.12.2017 and
11.02.2020 enforced under the provisions
of the Manual and thus, once such a
remedy is available to the applicant, this
Court declines to issue notice in the
contempt proceedings.

20.

The
contempt
petition
is
dismissed.
----------
(2021)02ILR A355
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.02.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

Contempt No. 1213 of 2019

Sudhir Kumar Srivastava ...Applicant
Versus
Alok Kumar Mukherjee, The Then Sr.
Registrar Of Hon'ble High Court
 ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Jyotinjay Verma

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Gaurav Mehrotra

A. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971-Section
19-maintainabilty
of-contempt
petition
was dismissed-application -for recall of
order-rejection-court has no power to
review or recall the order dismissing the
contempt petition on merit-a division
bench judgment held that the Act of 1971
impliedly excludes the power of recall or
review-application for recall filed by the
petitioner simply indicating it to be a
recall of the order is in fact an order for
review as would be apparent from perusal
of the averments made in the said
affidavit along with the averments made
in the written submissions-Hence, keeping
in view the law laid down by the Apex
Court, it is apparent that the application in