Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bharat Lal And Ors vs Chaman Singh And Ors on 19 December, 2023
Author: Rajbir Sehrawat
Bench: Rajbir Sehrawat
RAJ KUMAR
2023.12.21 11:00
2023:PHHC: 163699
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
209
COCP No.3388 of 2018
DATE OF DECISION ; 19" DECEMBER, 2023
Bharat Lal & others
.... Petitioners
Versus
Chaman Singh & others
.... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJBIR SEHRAWAT
RREKRKSE
Present: | Mr. Amit Jain, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Aryaman Thakur, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate and
Mr. Rohit Rana, Advocate for respondent No.1, 3, 5 & 7.
Mr. Amit Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.4.
Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate for respondent No.6.
3 Ok Ok OK
RAJBIR SEHRAWAT, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under
Sections 11 & 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 initiating
contempt proceedings against the respondents for not obeying the orders
dated 07.07.2006 and 02.12.2011 passed by this Court in RSA No.641 of
2006.
2. The counsel for the petitioners has raised two arguments and
has submitted that vide order dated 07.07.2006 the status quo regarding
possession was ordered by this court. Subsequently, when the appellants
in the regular second appeal intended to sell the said land, even the
petitioners filed an application seeking injunction. In that application this
court had stayed alienation of the suit property. However, now the
respondents have entered into an agreement to sell with full payment and
| attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document/judgment
RAJ KUMAR
2023.12.21 11:00
| attest to the accuracy and
COCP No.3388 of 2018 2023:PHHC: 163699
have delivered the possession as such. Therefore, both the above
mentioned orders passed by this court stand violated. Hence the
respondents deserve to be punished for contempt.
3. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents has
submitted that they have not violated any order. From the date of filing
of the regular second appeal, undisputedly, the property was in their
possession. Thereafter, the order of the status quo, passed on application
moved by the respondent, has become operational. Therefore, the
possession has always been with the respondents. The respondents have
not passed any title to any third party. There is only an agreement
alleged to have been entered into and the possession is alleged to have
been handed over to a third person under the agreement. However, even
under the said agreement, the possession of above said third party is only
under the authority of the respondents till the title is transferred in favour
of the said third party. Undisputedly, no title has been transferred by the
respondents so far in favour of any other person.
4. In view of the above, this court does not find any ground to
continue with the present petition any more. Hence, the present petition
is dismissed.
19™ December, 2023 (RAJBIR SEHRAWAT)
'Taj' JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes No
Whether Reportable: Yes No
integrity of this document/judgment
