Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gajadhar Singh vs Sandeep Kumar & Anr on 1 July, 2024
Author: Vikas Bahl
Bench: Vikas Bahl
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081071
COCP-377-2003 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(101-1)
COCP-377-2003
Date of decision: - 01.07.2024
Gajadhar Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
Sandeep Kumar and another
.....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present:- Ms. Farheen Bajwa, Advocate, and
Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate
for the petitioner
None for the respondents.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
1. Present contempt petition has been filed under Sections 10 & 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for punishing the respondents for their wilful disobedience to the order dated 21.11.2002 (Annexure P-4) passed by this Court in RSA-4455-2002.
2. The present contempt petition was ordered to be heard along with RSA-4455-2002. The said RSA-4455-2002 has been disposed of in the following terms: -
"1. Plaintiffs-appellants had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the property marked A E F D is a 20' wide passage and a further prayer for permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.1 from raising any construction over the super structure or causing any hindrance over any part of the said passage, was made.
1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 20-07-2024 17:42:42 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081071 COCP-377-2003 -2-
2. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 14.05.2001 had partly decreed the suit and had observed that the defendant being the owner of the disputed area was restrained from raising any construction over the disputed area without getting the site plan approved from Municipal Committee as per rules and defendant No.2 Municipal Committee was required not to disturb the ownership of defendant No.1 except after following and taking into consideration the relevant provisions and procedure of Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 at the time of sanctioning of the site plan.
3. Aggrieved against the said judgment and decree, Sandeep Kumar (defendant No.1) filed an appeal and the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, vide judgment and decree dated 08.11.2002 allowed the said appeal and the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed. The plaintiffs have come in appeal against the said judgment of the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur dated 08.11.2002.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the dispute in the present case was with respect to a small area, but however in spite of best efforts, he has not been able to get the instructions from the client whether any cause survives in the present appeal or not and has submitted that the present appeal be disposed of as having been rendered infructuous, but liberty be granted to the appellants to revive the same in case any cause survives.
5. In view of the above, the present appeal is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.
6. Liberty is granted to the appellants to revive the present appeal, in case any cause of action survives.
7. Registry is directed to send the copy of the present order to the parties on the addresses mentioned in the memo of parties
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the same, the present contempt petition be also disposed of as having been rendered infructuous, but liberty be granted to the petitioner to revive the same in case any cause survives.
4. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of as 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 20-07-2024 17:42:43 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081071 COCP-377-2003 -3- having been rendered infructuous.
5. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to revive the present contempt petition, in case any cause of action survives.
6. Registry is directed to send the copy of the present order to the parties on the addresses mentioned in the memo of parties.
July 01, 2024 ( VIKAS BAHL )
naresh.k JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
3 of 3
::: Downloaded on - 20-07-2024 17:42:43 :::