Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raghunath And Anr vs Narinder Pal Kaur And Anr on 28 August, 2014
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Inderjit Singh
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
......
C.O.C.P. No.556 of 2011 (O&M)
.....
Date of decision:28.8.2014
Raghunath and another
.....Petitioners
v.
Narinderpal Kaur and another
.....Respondents
....
Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh
.....
Present: Mr. P.K. Gupta, Advocate for for the petitioners.
Mr. B.S. Sewak, Advocate for the respondents.
.....
Inderjit Singh, J.
Raghunath etc.-petitioners have filed this contempt petition against Narinderpal Kaur and Kesar Singh under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for commissioning the respondents for violating the Court order dated 1.3.2011 passed by this Court in Civil Revision No.1428 of 2011.
It is stated in the petition that a suit for permanent injunction was filed by respondent No.1 against the petitioners. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. was moved by respondent No.1. Reply to the said application was filed by the petitioners.
Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fatehgarh Sahib HARPAL SINGH PARMAR dismissed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. and an 2014.09.30 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh C.O.C.P. No.556 of 2011 (O&M) [2] appeal was filed against the said order (Annexure-P.3) by respondent No.1 before learned Additional District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, which was allowed. As the order was without any basis; based upon surmises and conjectures is worth to be set aside and the order of the learned trial Court was well reasoned, so aggrieved against the order, the petitioners filed Civil Revision No.1428 of 2011 before this Court on 1.3.2011. This Court was pleased to pass order (Annexure-P.5) vide which the notice of motion was issued and the parties were directed to maintain status quo regarding raising of construction over the property in dispute. It is further stated in the petition that in spite of the respondents were made aware of the order on 3.3.2011 and the copy of the same was given in the concerned Police Station, the respondents became adamant and forcibly entered into the property, brought building material and removed the boundary wall of the petitioners and both the respondents forcibly raised construction with the help of Mason and labour on 4.3.2011 and intimation to that effect was given to the Police. The Police reached at the spot and requested the respondents not to do this illegal act, but respondent-Kesar Singh treated the Police and the petitioners in bad way.
Notice of motion was issued to the respondents, who appeared through counsel and filed reply and contested this petition. In the reply, it is stated that the order dated 1.3.2011 passed by this Court is ex parte order and the said order was brought to the notice of the respondents on 5.3.2011 by the Police, where the petitioner moved an application to the S.H.O., Fatehgarh Sahib. The allegations regarding raising construction forcibly on HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2014.09.30 16:27 4.3.2011 are totally false and vague. In fact, the construction was started on I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh C.O.C.P. No.556 of 2011 (O&M) [3] 24.2.2011 much before the interim order passed by this Hon'ble Court and it was completed on 25.2.2011. Thus, there is no violation of the orders passed by this Court.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
In supports of its case, the petitioners produced on record Annexure-P.1, which is an application given by Raghunath on 3.3.2011 to S.H.O., Fatehgarh Sahib. In this application, there is endorsement regarding having received on 5.3.2011 at 11.20 a.m. by Kesar Singh-respondent. Annexure-P.2 is the retail invoice of Sohanpal Cement Stockist, which is dated 24.2.2011, according to which 40 bags of cement were purchased for `11,600/- by Narinderpal Kaur wife of Kesar Singh. Annexure-P.3 also is a retail invoice/bill of Babu Ram & Sons, according to which Steel and pipe etc. were purchased for `5,538/-. Similar are the other documents, which are dated 24.2.2011 for purchasing bricks etc. All these documents support the version of respondent No.1 that he came to know regarding this status quo order passed by this Court on 5.3.2011 at 11.20 a.m. The petitioners have placed on record so many photographs, but from the photographs, in no way, it can be held that this construction was made after knowing this order of status quo by the respondents on 5.3.2011. Rather, on one photograph itself, which is Annexure-P.11, date is mentioned as 5.3.2011 and the construction has been shown as complete. So, there is nothing on the record to show that this construction was raised after coming into the knowledge of the status quo order by the respondents after 5.3.2011. On the HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2014.09.30 16:27 face of it, it is clear that there is no violation by the respondents after the I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh C.O.C.P. No.556 of 2011 (O&M) [4] passing of the order dated 1.3.2011 after coming to know of maintaining status quo regarding raising the construction over the property in dispute.
Therefore, from the above, finding no merit in the present contempt petition, the same is dismissed.
Rule discharged.
August 28, 2014. (Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2014.09.30 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh