Harwant Kaur & Another vs Surinder Chaudhary on 27 October, 2009

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                         CHANDIGARH.

                                       CACP No.5 of 2005(O&M)
                                     Date of decision: 27.10.2009

Harwant Kaur & another.
                                                   -----Appellants
                               Vs.
Surinder Chaudhary.
                                                 -----Respondent


CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH

Present:-   Mr. H.S. Bhullar, Advocate
            for the appellants.

            Mr. Vishal Goel, Advocate for
            Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate
            for the respondent.
              ---

ORDER:

1. This appeal has been preferred against initiation of

contempt proceedings.

2. The respondent – contempt petitioner alleged that in

violation of order of status quo granted by this Court on

27.11.2000 in Civil Revision No.5210 of 2000, the appellants

executed sale deeds dated 19.5.2004 and 10.8.2004 and

delivered possession. In view of above position, it was observed

that there being violation of order dated 27.11.2000, the

appellants were liable to be proceeded against for contempt.
CACP No.5 of 2005 2

They were directed to deposit all the sale proceeds with the

Registrar of this Court and to remain present on the next date.

3. It is not disputed that the appellants have executed

sale deeds in violation of order of this Court. However, it is

pointed out that during pendency of this appeal, suit of the

respondent-plaintiff was dismissed on 10.5.2005 and the lower

Appellate Court partly decreed the suit to the extent of 1/5th share

of one parcel of the suit property, on 13.2.2007 and as per

information of learned counsel for the appellants, no further

proceedings have been taken. He states that the appellants

undertake to deposit 1/5th share of the sale proceeds in respect of

the land at Raipur, within one month from today, without prejudice

to rights and contentions of the parties. It is submitted that in

view of subsequent developments, matter may be considered by

learned Single Judge.

4. Learned counsel for the contempt petitioner says that

he is only a proxy counsel and does not know anything.

5. In view of above developments, no further order need

to be passed in appeal. Matter can be considered by learned

Single Judge. The appeal is disposed of.

6. Parties may appear before learned Single Judge for

further proceedings on 11.01.2010. Civil Revision No.5210 of

2000 may also be put up before learned Single Judge on that

day, if the said matter is still pending, as suggested by learned

counsel for the parties.

 CACP No.5 of 2005                    3




                    (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
                            JUDGE


October 27, 2009       ( GURDEV SINGH )
ashwani                     JUDGE