Rashmi Prabha v. Bank Of Baroda Through East General Manager Namely Sri B. B Mukhopadhyay,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1138 of 2018 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4185 of 2018 =========================================================== Rashmi Prabha, wife of Vijay Kumar Choudhary, resident of C-140, 3rd Floor Jawahar Park, Devli Road Khanpur, P.S. Nebsarai, New Delhi - 110062 .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. Bank of Baroda through East General Manager namely Sri B. B Mukhopadhyay, Patna Circle Boring Road, Patna, (M)- 8335073003.
2. Regional Manager namely Atul Kumar Khare, Bank of Baroda, Bhatt Road Purnea, (M) - 9102675895
3. Branch Manager namely Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, Bank of Baroda, Pathakdih (Chhatpatia) Bhagalpur (M)- 9931209094.
4. Authorized Officer/Chief Officer, Main Branch, Bank of Baroda, Bhagalpur namely, Navin Kumar Sahay, (M) - 8294634951
5. Tabarak Hussain @ Md. Tabarak, son of Murshid Ali, Resident of village Chandpur, P.S. Ekchari, District Bhagalpur .... .... Opposite Parties =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Tarun Kumar Sinha, advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. Sanjeev Shankar, Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 05-09-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties.
2. The present petition has been filed for initiating a contempt proceeding against the opposite parties for willful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 16.03.2018 passed in CWJC No. 4185 of 2018.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the opposite party-Bank points out that the petitioner has no locus standi in the matter as the auction purchaser of the relevant property was her
Patna High Court MJC No.1138 of 2018 dt.05-09-2018 2/2 husband Sri Vijay Kumar Choudhary and not the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present contempt petition has been filed by the wife of the auction purchaser as the latter was out of station at the relevant time.
5. This Court is of the view that the present contempt petition cannot be maintained at the instance of wife of the auction purchaser who is stranger to the entire transaction. The auction purchaser being out of station at the relevant time cannot confer a right upon his wife to file the present contempt petition, and that too without proper authorization in this regard.
6. The contempt petition accordingly stands dismissed. (Vikash Jain, J) B.T/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 11.09.2018 Transmission Date N.A.