Arun Sharma vs Sushma Devi & Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 20004 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Arun Sharma vs Sushma Devi & Another on 29 December, 2023

Author: Sandeep Sharma

Bench: Sandeep Sharma

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CMPMO No.774 of 2019 Date of Decision: 29.12.2023

.

_______________________________________________________

Arun Sharma .......Petitioner

Versus Sushma Devi & another ... Respondents

_______________________________________________________ Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1

of For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Senior Advocate with Ms. Ankita, Advocate. For the Respondents:

                             rt                    Mr. Mukul Sood,
                                                   respondent No.1.
                                                                                    Advocate,      for

                               Respondent No.2 is ex-parte.

_______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):

By way of instant petition filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, challenge has been laid to order dated

15.11.2019 passed by learned Civil Judge-II, Amb, District Una,

Himachal Pradesh in CMA No.482 of 2019, whereby prayer made on

behalf of the applicant/petitioner for providing police assistance to

enforce and implement the status quo order has been rejected.

2. Having taken note of the averments contained in the

aforesaid petition, this Court vide order dated 25.11.2019, restrained

the respondents from carrying out any further construction over the

suit land, but allegedly aforesaid order was violated and as such,

Whether the reporters of t he local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

applicant/petitioner was compelled to file an application bearing CMP

No.1694 of 2022 under Order 39 Rule 2-A read with Sections 94 and

151 CPC for initiation of contempt proceedings against the

.

respondents.

3. Before further order, if any, could be passed on the

aforesaid application, main suit, wherein, status quo order was

allegedly violated by the respondents, stands disposed of.

of

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff states that on

account of aforesaid subsequent development, he has instructions not rt to press the petition and as such, same may be disposed of but stated

that proceedings initiated under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC for violation

of order passed by this Court, may be taken to its logical end.

5. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of

as having rendered infructuous, but Registry is directed to prepare

separate case file on the basis of application filed under Order 39

Rule 2-A CPC as well as other ancillary applications and thereafter,

same may be listed before this Court for further orders.

In the aforesaid terms, the present t petition is disposed

of.

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge December 29,2023 (shankar)