Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurjit Kaur Alias Satnam Kaur vs Jarnail Singh And Another on 29 October, 2009
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
...
COCP No. 397 of 2009(O&M)
Date of decision: October 29, 2009
Gurjit Kaur alias Satnam Kaur .. Petitioner
Versus
Jarnail Singh and another ..Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg
Present: Mr. N.K.Manchanda, Advocate
for the petitioner
Mr. N.S. Dhandiwal,Advocate
for the respondents.
..
Rakesh Kumar Garg,J(Oral)
Reply by way of affidavit of Amandeep Singh son of Jarnail Singh on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 has been filed in court and the same is taken on the record.
The grievance of the petitioner before this court is that the respondents have alienated the disputed land despite an undertaking given before the Civil Judge(Junior Division), Ferozepur in Civil Suit No. 460/19.9.2003 on 17.11.2006, whereby it was stated by the respondents that they shall not alienate the suit property during the pendency of the suit.
In response to the show cause notice issued by this court, reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitting that the respondents have transferred only a portion of the suit land and the aforesaid transfer does not prejudice the rights of the petitioner to claim her maintenance from the remaining land which is still in their name.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
It is not in dispute that the statement dated 17.11.2006 was suffered by the respondents in the application filed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. However, the Civil Suit itself was decreed in favour of the petitioner vide judgment and decree dated 26.8.2008. The present contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner on 4.3.2009 alleging breach of undertaking as per interim order dated 17.11.2006 which has merged into decree dated 26.8.2008. The aforesaid decree is executable.
In view of the aforesaid facts that during the pendency of the suit, the petitioner had not alleged any violation of order dated 17.11.2006 and now the petitioner has an independent remedy of execution of the decree dated 26.8.2008, I am not inclined to proceed further in this petition.
Rule discharged.
However, the petitioner is at liberty to execute the decree dated 26.8.2008 in accordance with law.
October 29, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG)
nk JUDGE