Sudhir Singh Rawal vs Rajendra Prasad And Another

A.F.R.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 403 of 2026
Sudhir Singh Rawal …..Petitioners(s)
Versus
Rajendra Prasad And Another …..Respondents(s)
Counsel for Petitioners(s) : Ajay Mishra, Sachin Chauhan, Sr.
Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Amit Singh Yadav, Dharmendra
Kumar, Udai Bhanu Singh
Court No. - 21
HON’BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
HON’BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.
Ref: Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 3 of 2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants.
2. Cause shown for the delay in filing the special appeal is to the
satisfaction of the Court.
3. Accordingly, delay in filing the special appeal is condoned. The appeal
is treated to be filed within time.
4. The delay condonation application is allowed.
Order on Appeal
1. Heard Sri Shri Krishna Mishra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri
Ajay Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri U.B. Singh,
learned counsel for respondent no. 1.

2
SPLAD No. 403 of 2026
2. The instant intra court appeal is preferred under Chapter VIII Rule 5
of the High Court Rules, 1952 against the impugned order dated
28.03.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in Contempt Application
(Civil) No. 1925 of 2026 (Rajendra Prasad vs. Anuj Mehara, Sub
Divisional Magistrate and others).
3. Before proceeding on merits of the case, the brief facts, which emerge
from the record, are as follows:-
1
4. Initially suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A.& LR. Act came to be
filed which was registered as Suit no. 33/ 2010-11; Rajendra Vs. Teekam
Singh for a declaratory relief. The suit came to be dismissed by means of
order dated 23.05.2011. The plaintiff/ respondent preferred an appeal
against the same which came to be allowed by means of order dated
22.02.2012. The appellant preferred an appeal before the Board of
Revenue which came to be dismissed by order dated 06.06.2022. The
appellant thereafter preferred Writ B No. 304 of 2012; Sudhir Singh
Rawat vs. Board of Revenue which came to be disposed off on
16.12.2024 with a direction that the Trial Court will take a decision
either to permit the plaintiff to cure the defects of suit or grant
permission to file a fresh suit in terms of Order VII Rule 13 C.P.C. as the
case may be. For ready reference the order is reproduced herein under:-
"1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh and Sri Ram Krishna Mishra, learned
advocates for petitioner and Sri Sujeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for
respondents.
2. Learned advocates for petitioner submit that lis between predecessors
of parties has been settled up to Supreme Court in favour of predecessor
of petitioner, therefore, any subsequent suit filed by predecessor of
respondents herein would not be maintainable.
3. Learned advocates further submit that a subsequent suit filed by
respondents was rejected vide order dated 23.05.2011 mainly on a
ground that certain procedure was not followed.
1 Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (UP Act No. 1 of 1951)

3
SPLAD No. 403 of 2026
4. Learned advocates further submit that first appeal filed by
plaintiffs/respondents was allowed vide order dated 22.02.2012 and
matter was remitted back to trial Court with an observation either to
permit the plaintiffs/respondents to cure the defects or, if any application
is filed to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh be considered in
accordance with law.
5. Learned advocates further submit that second appeal was filed by
petitioner which was dismissed at the stage of admission vide order
dated 06.06.2012.
6. Learned advocates for petitioner submit that petitioner has raised all
legal issues before Board of Revenue that suit was barred by res-judicata,
however, same were not considered.
7. Learned counsel for respondents submits that stage to consider
whether suit is barred by res-judicata has still not arrived since suit has
been remitted back only on issue either to cure the defects by
respondents or to withdraw the suit.
8. I have considered above submissions and perused the record.
9. The Supreme Court in Satyanath and another vs. Sarojmani, (2022) 7
SCC 644 has held in paragraph 21 in regard to preliminary issue that:-
"21. The provisions of Order 14 Rule 2 are part of the procedural law,
but the fact remains that such procedural law had been enacted to ensure
expeditious disposal of the lis and in the event of setting aside of
findings on preliminary issue, the possibility of remand can be avoided,
as was the language prior to the unamended Order 14 Rule 2. If the issue
is a mixed issue of law and fact, or issue of law depends upon the
decision of fact, such issue cannot be tried as a preliminary issue. In
other words, preliminary issues can be those where no evidence is
required and on the basis of reading of the plaint or the applicable law, if
the jurisdiction of the court or the bar to the suit is made out, the court
may decide such issues with the sole objective for the expeditious
decision. Thus, if the court lacks jurisdiction or there is a statutory bar,
such issue is required to be decided in the first instance so that the
process of civil court is not abused by the litigants, who may approach
the civil court to delay the proceedings on false pretext."

4
SPLAD No. 403 of 2026
10. The First Appellate Court has remitted the matter to trial Court with a
direction either to permit plaintiffs to cure the defect or permit the
plaintiffs to withdraw the suit to file a fresh suit in terms of Order VII
Rule 13 CPC. The challenge to such liberty at behest of
petitioner/defendants is not legally sustainable since suit is still not heard
on merit.
11. At this stage, learned counsel for respondents submits that
respondents are contemplating to file a fresh suit.
12. In aforesaid circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with an
observation that trial Court will take a decision either to permit the
plaintiffs to cure defects of suit or grant permission to file a fresh suit in
terms of Order VII Rule 13 CPC, as the case may be. The trial Court may
take a decision expeditiously, preferably within 4 weeks from today after
hearing petitioner herein/defendant therein also, if necessary."
5. Thereafter the respondent, Rajendra Prasad, moved an application in
Suit No. 33 of 2011; Rajendra vs. Tikam Singh and another under
Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act on 10.01.2025. For ready reference
the application so moved by the opposite party is also reproduced herein
under:-
"
न्यायालयश्रीमानउपजिलाधिकारीमहोदयदादरीगौतमबुद्धनगर
-33 -2011
वादसंख्या सन्

राजेन्द्रबनामटीकमसिंहआदि
-229
अ०धारा बी०उत्तरप्रदेशजमींदारीविनाशअधिनियम
-
मौजा आमका
Writ-B-
प्रार्थनापत्रबावतमाननीयउच्चन्यायालयइलाहाबादमेंलम्बि त
No-30424 -2012

सन सुधीरसिंहरावलबनामबोर्डआफरेवन्यूआदिमेंपारित
16.12.2024

आदेशदिनांक काअनुपालनसुनिश्चितकरनेहेतुओरसेवादी
-

निम्नआधारोपरप्रस्तुतहैः

5
SPLAD No. 403 of 2026
,
महोदय

निवेदनहैकि वादीनेवादउक्तबावतघोषणात्मकडिग्रीहेतुअदालतहाजामें
-23.05.2011
योजितकियाथाजोअदालतहाजाद्वारापारितआदेशदिनांक के

तहतपोषणीयनहीहोनेकेकारणखारिजकरदियाथाउपरोक्तआदेश
-23.05.2011
दिनांक केविरूद्धवादीनेअपीलन्यायालयश्रीमानआयुक्तमेरठ

मण्डलमेरठकीअदालतमेंयोजितकीजिसकाविचारणन्यायालयश्रीमान
( ) ,
अपरआयुक्त प्रशासन मेरठमण्डलमेरठलम्बि तरहीहै जिसमेंपारितआदेश
-22.02.2012
दिनांक केतहतअपीलआंशिकरूपसेस्वीकारकरकेअदालत
-23.05.2011 -08.6.2011
हाजाद्वारापारितआदेशएवंडिग्रीदिनांक वदि०

निरस्तकरकेपत्रावलीअदालतहाजाकोप्रतिप्रेषितकीथी।

श्रीमानजीप्रतिवादीगणनेन्यायालयश्रीमानअपरआयुक्तप्रशासनमेरठ
22.02.2012
मण्डलकेआदेश केखिलाफमाननीयराजस्वपरिषदसर्किट

न्यायालयमेरठमेंद्वितीयअपीलयोजितकीगयीजोग्राह्यकियेजानेंयोग्यन

पातेहुएनिर्णितकीगयीतथाअपरआयुक्तमहोदयप्रशासनमेरठमण्डल

मेरठकेआदेशकेसापेक्षहीप्रति प्रेषितकीगयीथी।माननीयराजस्वपरिषद
-06.06.2012

केआदेशदिनांक केखिलाफप्रतिवादीगणद्वारामाननीयउच्च
0-31376
न्यायालयइलाहाबादमेंरिटयाचिकासं सत्येन्द्रआदि बनामबोर्ड
-02.07.2012
आफरेवन्यूआदि योजितकीजिसमेंपारितआदेशदिनांक के
( )
तहत न्यायालय श्रीमान अपर आयुक्त प्रशासन मेरठ के आदेश
-22.02.2012
दिनांक वमाननीयराजस्वपरिषदसर्किटकोर्टमेरठद्वितीयअपील
-06.6.2012
मेंपारितआदेशदिनांक स्थगितकियेगये।
Writ-B-No-30424 -2012
श्रीमानजीमाननीयउच्चन्यायालयइलाहाबाद सन

सुधीरसिंहरावलबनामबोर्डआफरेवन्यूआदि मेंपारितआदेशदिनांक
-16.12.2024
केतहतविचारणन्यायालयकोनिर्णयकरनेहेतुनिर्देशितकिया
-16.12.2024
हैऐसीदशामेंमाननीयउच्चन्यायालयकेआदेशदिनांक का

अनुपालनसुनिश्चितकियाजानान्यायहितमेंअतिआवश्यकहै।

अतःश्रीमानजीसेप्रार्थनाहैकि माननीयउच्चन्यायालयइलाहाबादमेंलम्बि त
Writ-B-No-30424 -2012
सन सुधीरसिंहरावलबनामबोर्डआफरेवन्यूआदि
-16.12.2024
मेंपारितआदेशदिनांक काअनुपालनसुनिश्चितकियाजाकरवाद

6
SPLAD No. 403 of 2026

पत्रावलीतलबकीजाकरवादउक्तमेंअग्रिमकार्यवाहीअमलमेंलायीजावे
"
आपकीअतिकृपाहोगी।
6. The Sub Divisional Magistrate proceeded to decide the application on
merits. The application was rejected vide an order dated 20.01.2026 on
the premise that the same is not maintainable as no application was
moved praying the relief in view of the leave accorded by the learned
Single Judge. For ready reference the operative portion of the order
dated 20.01.2026 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dadri, in OS
No. 27410 of 2025; Rajendra Prasad vs. Tikam Singh and others under
Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act is reproduced herein under:-
" 7 11
प्रतिवादीकीओरसेआदेश नियम सी०पी०सी०केतहतवादअपूर्णहोने
0 33/2011 23.05.2011
केकारणसं कोपोषणीयनहोनेकेकारणदिनांक को
23
निरस्तकियाजाचुकाहै।जो०चकबन्दीअधिनियमकीनियम केअन्तर्गत

वादीद्वारादौरानचकबन्दीकोईआपत्तिप्रस्तुतनहींकीगयीऔरनहीस्वत्व

एवंकब्जेकोलेकरकोईतथ्यउठायागयाहै।इसप्रकारवादअपूर्णहोनेके

कारणपोषणीयनहींहै।जिसकेसम्बन्धमेंमा०उच्चतमन्यायालयमेंयोजित
, -
वादरामशरणबनामगंगादेवी मेंनिर्णयसंदर्भितकियागयाहैकि आसामीजब

भूमि परकाबिजनहोतोवहाकब्जाकीमांगकियेबिनाहैसियतकीघोषणा

कावादनहींचलायाजासकता।ऐसीस्थि ति मेंवादीकावादपोषणीयनहोने

केकारणनिरस्तकियेजानेयोग्यहै।

मेरेद्वारावादीप्रतिवादीकेविद्वानअधिवक्ताकोसुनागयातथापत्रावलीका
,
अवलोकनकियागया जिसकेअवलोकनसेविदितहैकि मा०उच्चन्यायालय
16.12.2024
द्वारादिनांक कोआदेशपारितकरतेहुएआदेशितकियागयाकि

वादीयातोवादमेंसंशोधनप्रार्थनापत्रप्रस्तुतकरेयाफिरनयावादयोजित

करें।किन्तुवादीद्वारान्यायालयमेंनातोकोईसंशोधनप्रार्थनापत्रहीप्रस्तुत

कियागयाहैऔरनहीकोईनयावादयोजितकियागया।उक्तकेअतिरिक्त
,
प्रश्नगतवादपत्रमेंवादीद्वारावादपत्रकासत्यापननहींकरायागया जो

सी०पी०सी०केप्राविधानितआदेशोंएवंनियमोंकाउल्लंघनहै।वादपत्रके
,
साथजिनविवादितभूमि परघोषणाचाहीहै उससेसम्बन्धि तआवश्यक

अभिलेखदाखिलनहींकियेगये।दावेमेंनियमानुसारस्टाम्पवतलवानेके

टिकिटनहींलगायेगये।दावेकेसमर्थनमेंवादीकेद्वारासम्बन्धि तभूमि की

7
SPLAD No. 403 of 2026

खतौनीनहींलगायीगयी।दावेमेंसंलग्नप्रार्थनापत्रोंपरवादीगणकेहस्ताक्षर
80 106
नहींहै।नोटिसधारा सी०पी०सी०एवं पंचायतराजएक्टप्रतिवादीसं०
9 ,
को भेजागया है शेषप्रतिवादीगणको नोटिसनहींभेजागया है।

प्रतिवादीगणकोसूचनाहेतुनोटिसएवंवादपत्रकीप्रतियांदाखिलनहींकी

गयी।ऐसीस्थि तिमेंवादीकावादपोषणीयनहोनेकेकारणनिरस्तकियेजाने

योग्यहै।
आदेश
18.06.2025
अतःवादीकावाददिनांक पोषणीयनहोनेकेकारणनिरस्तकिया
“
जाताहै।पत्रावलीबादआवश्यककार्यवाहीदाखिलदफ्तरहो।
7. Against the order dated 20.01.2026, the respondent preferred a
contempt application which was registered as Contempt Application
(Civil) No. 1925 of 2026. The learned Single Judge has proceeded to
dispose of the same vide order dated 28.03.2026 which is under
challenge in the instant appeal. The learned Single Judge gave a liberty
to the applicant/ respondent to move a fresh application before the Trial
Court for either getting the defects cured or to seek liberty for filing a
fresh suit.
8. Shri S.K. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant has
submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge granting
another opportunity to the respondent to file a fresh application for either
curing the defect or to seek liberty to file a fresh suit is without
jurisdiction and perverse in law. He submits that the learned Single
Judge has entered into the merits of the case and granted relief which
could only have been done if the order passed by the SDM was
challenged in a writ petition. He further submits that the learned Single
Judge sitting in contempt jurisdiction could not have gone in to the
merits of the order dated 20.01.2026 and granted relief of fresh liberty
and the same was per se without jurisdiction. As to the maintainability of
the special appeal, learned senior counsel submits that as the impugned

8
SPLAD No. 403 of 2026
order was without jurisdiction therefore, the appeal is maintainable. On
these grounds the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
9. Per contra, Sri U.B. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent resisted
the relief and submits that in view of the leave accorded by the Writ
Court an application was moved. Instead of deciding the application in
terms of the Writ Court mandate, in arbitrary manner the same has been
rejected by the Sub Divisional Magistrate and as such the contempt
proceedings was very much available to the applicant to decide the same
in accordance with law.
10. We have heard rival submission and perused the records. From the
records we find that the appellant herein had filed Writ B No. 30424 of
2012 challenging the orders passed by the Commissioner and the Board
of Revenue by which the Trial Court was directed to pass an order to
remove the defects in the suit or allow the plaintiff/ respondents to file a
fresh suit. The contention of the appellant was that the suit was wrongly
allowed to be remanded back when the issue stood decided till the
Supreme Court. However, the relief was accorded by the learned Single
Judge with an observation "the trial court will take a decision either to
permit the applicant to cure the defect or to file a fresh suit in terms of
the order VII Rule 13 C.P.C., as the case may be. The trial court may
take a decision from the expeditiously, preferably within 4 weeks from
today after hearing petitioner herein/defendant therein also, if
necessary."
11. What is apparent from the record is that the application moved by the
respondent did not specifically aver for removal of defects or for
granting liberty for filing a fresh suit. The applicant simply made a
prayer to comply with the directions of the order passed in the writ
petition. The respondent on one hand did not comply with the directions
given by this Court in Writ B No. 30424 of 2012 while on the other hand
filed a contempt application alleging that the SDM did not willfully
comply with the orders passed in the writ petition. We find that the same

9
SPLAD No. 403 of 2026
is factually incorrect, as the applicant while pressing the proceedings
before the Sub Divisional Magistrate has actually never pressed such
relief and, accordingly, the same was dismissed. Instead of challenging
the same before the appropriate appellate/revisional authority under the
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, in its own wisdom the contempt application was
pressed by Rajendra Prasad. We find that the order passed by learned
Single Judge, under the facts and circumstances, is not tenable in law, as
the learned Single Judge does not have the jurisdiction to make such
observation and issue such direction and remand the matter.
12. The question as to whether an intra court appeal would be
maintainable if the order impugned is passed without jurisdiction is no
longer res integra. In Midnapore Peoples Cooperative Vs. Chunni Lal
2
Nanda and Others the Supreme Court while dealing with the said issue
has held as following:
11.(V.) If the High Court, for whatsoever reason, decides an issue or
“
makes any direction, relating to the merits of the dispute between the
parties, in a contempt proceedings, the aggrieved person is not without
remedy. Such an order is open to challenge in an intra-court appeal (if
the order was of a learned Single Judge and there is a provision for an
intra court appeal), or by seeking special leave to appeal under Article
136 of the Constitution of India (in other cases).”
3
In Subhash Chandra vs. Srikant Goswami and others this Court while
taking into consideration Midnapore (supra) held as follows:
“ 48. Thus, it cannot be said as an inflexible rule that an intra-court
appeal in no circumstance can be maintained. If an order passed in
contempt jurisdiction has the trappings of a final order and/or it has the
impact of diluting, varying the original order by which the disputes
between the parties have been decided on merits or the Contempt Court
touches the merit or passes an order beyond its scope then in such cases
an intra court appeal can be maintained.”
2 (2006) 5 SCC 399
3 Special Appeal No. 372 of 2023 (2024:AHC-LKO:5884-DB)

10
SPLAD No. 403 of 2026
The Court further held that:
“ 69. (C) Special appeals from the order or judgment of a single judge
bench in contempt cases hinge on the distinction between addressing the
merits of the original dispute and the conduct constituting contempt. The
primary responsibility of the Contempt Court is to determine whether
contempt has occurred and to impose appropriate sanctions if it has. The
merits of the original controversy are outside the domain of the contempt
court. However, when the Contempt Court issues directions or discusses
the merits of the original controversy, it oversteps its jurisdiction. In such
cases, a special appeal would lie to the High Court. This ensures that the
original substantive issues are not inadvertently decided within the
limited scope of contempt proceedings, preserving the parties' rights to a
fair adjudication of their dispute.
(D) The interpretation of each case depends on its specific facts and
circumstances. Courts must carefully distinguish between orders that
address the procedural aspects of contempt proceedings and those that
encroach upon the substantive issues of the original case. This distinction
is crucial to maintaining the integrity of contempt jurisdiction and
ensuring that appeals under Section 19 of the Act of 1971 are
appropriately limited to cases where punitive action for contempt has
been taken. Thus, Special appeals in contempt cases are warranted only
when the Contempt Court oversteps its jurisdiction by addressing the
merits of the original dispute, ensuring that the substantive rights of the
parties are protected. The interpretation of each case must consider the
specific facts and circumstances to uphold the integrity of contempt
jurisdiction and provide appropriate remedies for aggrieved parties.”
4
In Vinod Kumar Sharma and another vs. Shiv Mohan Dwivedi ; the
Court while relying upon Midnapore (supra) with regard to
maintainability of the intra court appeal held as follows:
“ 14. In the instant case, a bare reading of the two orders dated 31st July,
2019 and 21st August, 2019 passed in the contempt proceedings clearly
show that orders touch the merits of the dispute between the parties and
relate to the manner of implementation of the judgment passed by the
4 Special Appeal No. 1225 of 2019

11
SPLAD No. 403 of 2026
writ court, as such, the said directions would be referable to the powers
conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and accordingly,
the same would be amenable to an intra court appeal under Chapter VIII
Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court.”
13. This Court in Vinod Kumar Sharma (supra) in regard to the
jurisdiction of the contempt Court to issue directions has held as
following:
“ 17. The question which thus arises is as to whether necessary orders
having been passed by the authority concerned, stated to be in
compliance of the directions issued by the writ court, was it open for the
court exercising contempt jurisdiction to go beyond the directions
contained in the judgment of the writ court and enter into the question of
correctness, or otherwise, of the orders passed.
18. The broad contours governing the exercise of contempt jurisdiction
are fairly laid out. The High Court, while exercising jurisdiction to
punish for a breach or disobedience of its order, has to have due regard to
the directions which had been issued and of which a breach is alleged. It
has been consistently held that in dealing with a contempt petition, the
High Court cannot go behind the order of which a breach is complained
or, to take upon itself to decide issues which were not touched in the
original order. The orders which seek to supplement the directions issued
in terms of the original order, of which a breach is complained, cannot be
passed in the exercise of contempt jurisdiction. In doing so, the Court
would be expanding the scope of contempt jurisdiction, which would not
be permissible.”
14. Thus, from the above it is clear that an intra court appeal would lie
when the order passed is without jurisdiction. In cases where contempt
proceedings have been initiated, a contempt appeal would lie when the
opposite party is being punished for contempt of the Court under the
Contempt of Courts Act. However, an intra court appeal would lie when
the order passed in contempt jurisdiction has the trapping of touching
upon the merits of the case or issuing direction in the case. In the present
matter, the SDM had decided the application filed by the respondent as

12
SPLAD No. 403 of 2026
per the directions of this Court. The contempt Court was only called to
examine as to whether the order had been complied with or not. The
Court could not, under any circumstances, issue a direction granting
fresh liberty to the respondent to file another application on the same
relief which stood rejected. The correctness of the order could only be
seen in appropriate proceeding be it whether in a writ petition under
Article 226 or a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Such direction could not have been issued in a contempt jurisdiction
which does not inher the power to test the merits of the case.
15. We are in respectful agreement with the precedents cited above and
see no reason to disagree with the ratio laid out above. Accordingly, the
instant intra court appeal stands allowed. The order passed by the learned
Single Judge dated 28.03.2026 is set aside. However, leave is always
open to the opposite parties to press an appropriate relief in accordance
with law.
(Kunal Ravi Singh, J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)
May 20, 2026
Pkb/
Digitally signed by :-
PRAMOD KUMAR BAJPAI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad