[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manju Kumar vs Sandeep Yadav Additional District ... on 16 January, 2026
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
104
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
COCP-6192-2025 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 16.01.2026
MANJU KUMAR .... Petitioner
VERSUS
SANDEEP YADAV, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 12 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of
India for initiation of contempt proceedings and for punishing the respondent
for knowingly, willfully and deliberately disobeying the order dated
08.04.2025 passed by this Court in EFA-1-2025.
2. Learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad has been
impleaded as the respondent against whom the contempt is alleged.
3. This Court vide order dated 08.04.2025 passed in EFA-1-2025
has passed the following directions :
'7. Hence, the impugned order is set aside while
requesting the Executing Court to pass a fresh order. It
shall be open to the parties to take all the objections. The
Executing Court will pass a fresh order uninfluenced by
COCP-6192-2025 (O&M) -2-
the observations made in the impugned order or by this
Court.
8. Let a fresh order be passed within a period of 02
months.
9. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear
before the Executing Court on 02.05.2025.
10. The appeal is disposed of.'
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that a contempt
is made out against the Presiding Officer concerned as he has not decided the
case within the stipulated period.
5. Heard.
6. In the present case an order was passed by this Court on
08.04.2025 directing the Executing Court to pass a fresh order within a period
of two months. The matter was listed before the then Additional District judge,
Faridabad on 02.05.2025 and the same was adjourned to 19.05.2025. In the
order dated 19.05.2025 it has been noticed that the arguments were not
advanced and an adjournment was sought, though it is not clear as to who had
sought the adjournment. Subsequently, the Additional District Judge,
Faridabad at that point of time was transferred and the new incumbent took
up the matter on 09.07.2025. The order dated 09.07.2025 reveals that
arguments were not advanced and an adjournment was sought which was not
opposed. The case was adjourned to 06.08.2025. On 06.08.2025 yet again
arguments were not advanced and an adjournment was sought which was not
opposed. The case was adjourned to 24.09.2025. On 24.09.2025 and
COCP-6192-2025 (O&M) -3-
19.11.2025 the situation remained the same and arguments were not
advanced. On 17.12.2025 the following order was passed :
'Argument not advanced. Adjournment sought by learned
counsel for the judgment debtor and the auction purchaser which
was opposed. Now, case is adjourned to 04.02.2026 for
argument. It shall be last opportunity for said purpose'.
As is clear from the order dated 17.12.2025 reproduced above, the
adjournment was sought by the learned counsel for the judgment debtor and
the auction purchaser. Now the matter is listed before the Executing Court on
04.02.2026.
7. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
inaction by the respondent amounts to contempt under Section 16 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, deserves to be rejected. Firstly, the present
petition itself has not been filed under Section 16 of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971. Secondly, as is evident from the facts narrated above, the earlier
incumbent was transferred and thereafter the matter was listed before the
present respondent. All the zimni orders reveal that the arguments were not
addressed by the parties and repeatedly adjournments were sought. The
Executing Court possibly cannot be held liable for any violation of the order
passed by this Court on 08.04.2025 in view of the fact that it is the counsel for
the parties who are repeatedly seeking adjournments. The learned counsel for
the petitioner, while insisting that the Presiding Officer has committed
contempt, has pointed out to the application (Annexure P-3) moved by the
petitioner for correction in the order dated 19.05.2025 which application states
COCP-6192-2025 (O&M) -4-
that the petitioner had filed a copy of the written arguments on 19.05.2025
which fact has not been noticed in the said order. The relevance of referring
to the said application by the counsel for the petitioner to the present case is
not understandable.
8. When the parties themselves are repeatedly seeking
adjournments, it is not comprehendible as to how the Courts can be held
responsible for not deciding the matter. Neither is there any document which
has been placed on the record nor it has been argued that any application was
filed for correction of the orders stating therein that the orders, as recorded by
the Court, were incorrect and that no adjournments were sought by the counsel
for the petitioner.
9. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present
contempt petition and the same is accordingly dismissed with ₹20,000 as
costs. Costs be deposited by the petitioner with the District Legal Services
Committee, Faridabad. It is made clear that the case shall only be heard by the
Executing Court on production of the receipt evidencing deposit of the costs.
Copy of this order be also forwarded to the Executing Court concerned.
10. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
16.01.2026 (ALKA SARIN)
Aman Jain JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: Yes/No
