Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jasraj Singh vs Jaspal Singh Brar Sdm Malout on 12 May, 2026

Author: Pankaj Jain

Bench: Pankaj Jain

                                                In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana
                                                                 At Chandigarh

                                                                                        COCP-1924-2026 (O&M)
                                                                                        Date of Decision:-12.05.2026


                         Jasraj Singh                                                                      ... Petitioner

                                                                         Versus

                         Jaspal Singh Brar                                                               ... Respondent


                         CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

                         Present:-                  Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

                                                    Mr. H.P.S. Ishar, Addl.A.G., Punjab.

                                                                         *****

                         PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral)

1. Mr. Ishar, submitted that the order has been passed on 30.4.2026 by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Malout. A copy thereof has been supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner. The operative part of the said order reads as under:

"8. That on 29-04-2026, the Tehsildar, Malout, inspected the site and sent a status report. According to the report, Jasraj Singh's land is adjacent to the brick kiln, and the kiln owner, Amarjit Singh, has not constructed any wall.
9. That after perusing the written arguments of the respondent and the report of the Tehsildar, Malout, it is observed that although the respondent's counsel claims that the order was wrong and should not be executed, however, no appeal was filed by the respondent in a higher court against the order dated 09-11-2022. Therefore, the arguments of the respondent are rejected. Consequently, exercising the powers under Section 141 of the CrPC, 1973, the respondent is again ordered to implement the decision dated 09- PANKAJ KAKKAR 2026.05.12 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh COCP-1924-2026 (O&M) (2) 11-2022 within 30 days. In case of non-compliance, further action will be initiated under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)."

2. In view of above, no further order is required to be passed in the present contempt petition.

4. Disposed off accordingly.



                         12.05.2026                                                         ( PANKAJ JAIN )
                         Pankaj                                                                 JUDGE

                                                 Whether speaking /reasoned      Yes / No

                                                 Whether Reportable              Yes / No




PANKAJ KAKKAR
2026.05.12 16:07

I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh