JAMES SYIEMIONG v. ESEKIEL S MOND
Court: High Court of Meghalaya
Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. S. THANGKHIEW
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Meghalaya judgment dated 2026-07-27. JAMES SYIEMIONG v. ESEKIEL S MOND. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
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: 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 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 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
Source: High Court of Meghalaya. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.