Meghalaya vs Meghalaya-793017 on 27 July, 2026

Meghalaya High Court

Meghalaya vs Meghalaya-793017 on 27 July, 2026

Author: H.S.Thangkhiew

Bench: H.S.Thangkhiew

                                                                 2026:MLHC:762



     Serial No.03
     Regular List

                           HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
                               AT SHILLONG

Cont.Cas(C). No. 39 of 2026
                                                  Date of Decision: 27.07.2026

Shri. James Syiemiong,
S/o Smti. Euphrasia Syiemiong,
R/o Chapel Road, Qualapaty Block-1,
Shillong, East Khasi Hills District,
Meghalaya.
                                                                   ...Petitioner

                -Versus-

Shri. Esekiel S Mond,
Bailiff District Council Court,
S/o (L) S. Swer,
R/o Mawlai Nongkwar, Block-13,
East Khasi Hills District,
Meghalaya-793017.

                                                                 ...Respondent

Coram:
                    Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.S.Thangkhiew, Judge

Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Applicant(s) :           Mr. P.Yobin, Adv.

For the Respondent(s)              :        -


i)       Whether approved for reporting in                      Yes/No
         Law journals etc:

ii)      Whether approved for publication                       Yes/No
         in press:


                                        1
                                                                2026:MLHC:762



                   JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

1. Heard Mr. P.Yobin, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. This contempt application alleges contempt of this Court’s order

SPONSORED

dated 08-06-2026, passed in WP(C). No. 252 of 2026, with regard to the

staying of an execution proceeding for three days to allow the petitioner to

put in an application for stay of the proceeding.

3. Mr. P.Yobin, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on

consideration of the facts, this Court had allowed the petitioner three days’

time to put in an application before the Trial Cout, but however, though the

order was passed on 08-06-2026 itself, and the same was brought to the

knowledge of the respondent on the same day, the execution proceedings

had already commenced. He further submits that as the order was uploaded

at 5.30 p.m., as such, a physical copy of the same was not available at that

point of time to be presented.

4. On hearing the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner,

this Court sees that the matter in question had been taken up on the express

prayer of the petitioner to allow three days’ time to put in an application.

However, it appears that though orders were passed, the execution

proceedings had already commenced. In these circumstances, to discern as

2
2026:MLHC:762

to whether the order was communicated or that any contempt has been made

out before this Court at this stage is difficult.

5. Accordingly, contempt is not entertained and the matter stands closed

and disposed of and the petitioner is at liberty to seek other legal remedy

before the Trial Court.

Judge

Signature Not Verified 3
Digitally signed by
SAMANTHA ANNA LIYA
RYNJAH
Date: 2026.07.27 16:16:12 IST