COCP No.923 of 2009(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
COCP No.923 of 2009(O&M)
Date of decision: 9.7.2009
Sunehra Ram ......Petitioner
Versus
Ram Kumar and others .......Respondents
CORAM:- HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
* * *
Present: Mr. S.K. Sharma Budhladawale, Advocate for the petitioner.
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral)
CM No.11532-CII of 2009
CM is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
COCP No.923 of 2009
Mr. S.K. Sharma Budhladawale, Advocate, has appeared in
the case and filed his power of attorney on behalf of the petitioner which
has been duly signed by Mr. P.N. Arora, Advocate, giving him no objection
to appear in this case in his substitution. The power of attorney is taken on
record.
The present contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner
for violation of order dated 15.10.1999 (Annexure P-2) passed by this
Court in CM No. 7097 of 1999 in RSA No.4073 of 1999 wherein the parties
were directed to maintain status quo regarding possession.
It is the case of the petitioner that vide Annexure P-1, i.e.
Judgment dated 15.5.1999 passed by the Additional District Judge,
Kurukshetra, it was held that the petitioner was in possession of the
property in dispute and the defendant-respondents in that appeal (now
respondents) were restrained from interfering in the possession of the
COCP No.923 of 2009(O&M) 2
plaintiff (petitioner) and were further restrained from raising any
construction over the suit property. It is the further case of the petitioner
that despite the aforesaid status quo order granted by this Court vide order
Annexure P-2, the respondents herein on the night of 7.4.2009 have
constructed a wall measuring 41 feet in length and 8 feet in height with a
view to take forcible possession of the plot and thus, have violated the
interim order issued by this Court and are guilty of contempt of Court and
are liable to be suitably punished.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
Undisputedly the order dated 15.10.1999 is the interim order.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Food Corporation of
India v. Sukh Deo Parsad 2009 (2) RCR (Civil) 834, has categorically held
that when an interim order is disobeyed, contempt or penal proceeding do
not lie as the aggrieved party has remedy to file execution under Order 39
Rule 2A CPC. Admittedly the matter is pending before this Court in RSA
No.4073 of 1999 and the petitioner has also moved an application for
necessary relief in that appeal. Moreover, the order dated 15.10.1999 is
not in operation as the same was modified vide order dated 15.10.2001
passed in the regular second appeal and operation of the judgment and
decree of the Lower Appellate Court was stayed.
In view of the aforesaid matter, this Court is not inclined to take
cognizance of this contempt petition.
Disposed of.
Faced with this situation the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner has stated that the petitioner also moved application
i.e. CM No.6949-51-C of 2009 in RSA No.4073 of 1999 for restraining the
respondents (appellant in RSA No.4073 of 1999) from raising further
construction on the disputed plot during the pendency of the aforesaid
COCP No.923 of 2009(O&M) 3
appeal, which is fixed for 4.8.2009. It is needless to say that the petitioner
may pursue any other appropriate remedy available to him.
July 9, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG)
ps JUDGE
COCP No.923 of 2009(O&M) 4
Not only this, I find that the petitioner is guilty of misleading this Court by
suppressing material facts from the knowledge of this Court. I have also
perused the copy of the CM Nos.6949-51-C of 2009 moved by the
petitioner in RSA No.4073 of 1999. In para No.7 of the aforesaid
application, it has been categorically stated by the petitioner that vide order
dated 15.10.2001, the order dated 15.10.1999 passed by this Court was
moved to be read as under:
Admitted.
Operation of the judgment and decree of the First Appellate
Court is stayed till further orders.