COCP No.2005 of 2009(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
COCP No.2005 of 2009(O&M)
Date of decision: 10.11.2009
Sadhu Ram ......Petitioner(s)
Versus
Juglal and others ......Respondent(s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
* * *
Present: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.
CM No.26354-CII of 2009
Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
COCP No.2005 of 2009
As per the averments made in this petition, petitioner along
with one Gopi Ram filed civil suit No.1126 of 1988 for permanent injunction
restraining defendants No.1 to 3 therein from alienating the suit land to
defendant No.4-Juglal (respondent No.1 in the contempt petition) or any
other person comprised in Khewat No.185 min Khatauni No.320/259 rect.
No.107, Killa No.13/2 (0-5) and Khewat No.189 min, Khatauni No.334/277
rect No.29 killa Nos.14/1(0-19) 15/1(6-18) and Khewat No.4(8-0) Khewat
No.214 min/201, Khatauni No.383/381, rect. No.54 Killa No.4/3 (1-0),
Khewat No.154/141 Khatauni No.268/213, Rect. No.107 Killa No.13/1 (0-
18), Khewat No.89 min, Khatauni No.184/142, rect. No.111, Killa No.3 (8-
0), Khewat No.111 min/100/1 and Khatauni No.214/164/1. Rect. No.3 Killa
Nos.12/1 (2-16) 12/2 (5-4), 11/1/1(4-11), situated in village Badhaur, Tehsil
Panipat, Distt.Karnal. The claim of the plaintiffs in the suit, as set-up was
that they are co-sharers and co-owners of the land in dispute measuring
38K-11M. Previously their fore-fathers were real owners of the suit
COCP No.2005 of 2009(O&M) 2
property, but now the plaintiffs have become co-owners by way of
survivorship. It was further alleged that the fore-fathers of the plaintiffs
gave the agricultural land to one phulla, father-in-law of defendant No.1 in
Dholi. Accordingly, the plaintiffs were real owners, whereas defendants
No.1 and 2 were simple dholidars upon the land in question. Zile Singh
defendant No.3 Husband of Kalawati had expired leaving behind three
minor children, so they had also been impleaded as defendants.
It was also alleged that defendants No.1 to 3 were bent upon
to sell some portion of the land in dispute to defendant No.4. The plaintiffs
learnt that defendants No.1 and 2 had entered into an agreement to sell
the land in dispute to defendant No.4, so, they approached the Biradari
Panchayat on 16.7.1984 and requested them not to alienate the land in
dispute.
It was further alleged that during the pendency of the suit,
defendant No.1 had illegally executed a lease-deed dated 29.5.1985 in
favour of Sarupa and Nihala defendants No.5 & 6. Defendants No.1 and 2
had also illegally executed a sale-deed vide dated 27.11.1984 in favour of
defendants No.8 to 15, which was void and abinitio and liable to be set
aside. All these facts and circumstances necessitated the institution of the
present suit.
Thus, the aforesaid suit was filed by Gopi Ram and the
petitioner on the ground that defendants No.1 to 3 who are the legal heirs
of Surja, who was the son of Phula to whom some portion of the land in
question was given by the forefathers of the plaintiffs as Dholi land, were
in possession of the land as Dholidars and not as owners. The aforesaid
suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 25.11.1993 declaring the
aforesaid sale deed as well as lease deed mentioned above as null and
void and defendants No.1 to 3 were restrained for ever from selling,
COCP No.2005 of 2009(O&M) 3
mortgaging, alienating the land of Dholidars mentioned above. The appeal
preferred by defendants i.e. (respondents No.2 to 7 in the contempt
petition) was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Panipat vide his
judgment and decree dated 19.8.1999.
Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree,
respondents No.2 to 9 (defendants No.8 to 15 in the civil suit) filed Regular
Second Appeal No.154 of 2000 in which vide order dated 22.12.2008, this
Court ordered maintenance of status quo with regard to possession during
the pendency of the appeal. The aforesaid appeal is still pending before
this Court. The aforesaid order was passed on the application filed by the
defendant-appellants against the plaintiff-respondent (now petitioner).
The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.11 at the
instance of respondents No.1 to 9 with the active connivance of
respondents No.10 and 12 to 14 are allowing respondents No.1 to 9 to
install a submersible tubewell in Khasra No.29/14/1, 15/1 and thus, in this
manner, respondents No.1 to 9 are willfully violating the status quo order
passed by this Court on 22.12.2008 by interfering forcibly in the possession
of the land in question and also by installing submersible tubewell in the
aforesaid land.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner
It is not in dispute that defendants No.1 to 3 were in
possession of the suit land as Dholidars and the respondents in the
contempt petition are subsequent transferees from them and order dated
22.12.2008 was passed by this Court on the application filed by these
defendants against the plaintiff-respondents from taking forcible
possession of the land in dispute, whereas the present contempt petition
has been filed by one of the plaintiffs in the suit. Moreover, the order dated
22.12.2008 has been passed by this Court as an interim measure under
COCP No.2005 of 2009(O&M) 4
Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC and if there is any violation, the petitioner has
an effective remedy by moving an appropriate application under Order 39
Rule 2A CPC or any other application in RSA No.154 of 2000.
In view of the aforesaid, I am not inclined to take cognizance of
this contempt petition.
Dismissed.
November 10, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE