The Rajasthan High Court has held that the long pendency of an appeal does not absolve parties from complying with an operative interim order. A Single Bench comprising Justice Sandeep Shah found respondents guilty of contempt of court for wilfully disobeying a status quo direction issued in 1999 in respect of a disputed property.
Background Of The Dispute
The contempt petition arose from a second appeal pending since 1999 in which the High Court had directed the parties to maintain status quo concerning the suit property. The direction remained in force for over twenty-seven years. The petitioner alleged that the respondents had raised fresh construction on the plot in violation of the subsisting order.
The respondents contended that a room already existed on the site and had fallen into a dilapidated condition. They asserted that only repair work was undertaken bona fide, without any intention to contravene the interim direction. They further submitted that no effective proceedings had taken place in the appeal prior to 2020, as a result of which they could not remain in regular touch with their counsel. Based on these grounds, they prayed for a lenient view of the alleged violation.
Court Rejects Delay As Justification For Non-Compliance
After hearing the rival submissions, the Court underscored that the respondents had not filed any interim application seeking permission to carry out construction or renovation on the property. Justice Shah observed that the plea regarding inability to remain in contact with counsel owing to the absence of effective proceedings in the second appeal could not be accepted as a justification for disregarding an order that continued to remain operative.
The Bench held that the obligation to comply with the interim order was binding upon the parties irrespective of the progress of the appeal. The Court emphasised that the subsisting nature of the direction required strict adherence, and the passage of time did not dilute its enforceability.
Does Pendency Of Appeal Dilute Binding Nature Of Interim Order?
No. The Rajasthan High Court ruled that an interim status quo order remains fully enforceable regardless of the duration of the appeal or the frequency of hearings. Parties cannot rely on procedural dormancy or lack of communication with counsel to justify violations.
Comparative Analysis Of Respondents' Defence And Court's Findings
Respondents' Submission | Court's Finding |
|---|---|
Only repair of pre-existing dilapidated room undertaken bona fide | Construction amounted to violation; no interim application filed for permission |
No effective proceedings in appeal prior to 2020 | Pendency of appeal does not suspend obligation to comply with interim order |
Could not remain in regular touch with counsel | Not an acceptable justification for disregarding a subsisting court order |
Operative Outcome
Accepting the petitioner's contention, the High Court held the respondents guilty of contempt of court for wilful disobedience of the 1999 status quo direction. The judgment reinforces the principle that interim orders retain their binding force until expressly modified or vacated, and procedural delays in the main proceeding do not constitute a licence to breach such directions.