IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 183 of 2010 Date of decision: 6.9.2010 Dorpal …. Petitioner Versus Smt.Shakuntla Devi & ors. ….. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No. For the petitioner: Mr.G.R.Palsra, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Shrawan Dogra, Advocate for respondent No.1. _____________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 10.3.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Jr.Division), Court No.III, Mandi whereby the right of the petitioner herein to file reply to the Contempt Petition under Order 39 Rule 2-A, CPC has been closed. 2. It is alleged that the plaintiffs filed an application under 39 Rule 2-A, CPC complaining that the present petitioner had in defiance of the orders of the learned Trial Court interfered in their possession. 2 Notice was issued to the present petitioner and proforma respondents sometime in the year 2008. More than 6 or 7 opportunities were granted to them to file reply. They did not file their reply on the pretext that one of the respondent in the application had died. 3. In my view, there is no strength in this argument because if a party dies that does not prevent the parties who are represented in the Court from filing the reply, that to, to an application in which it is alleged that they have dis-obeyed the orders of the Court. 4. It is urged by Sh.G.R.Palsra, learned counsel for the petitioner that the present petitioner may be granted one opportunity to file reply otherwise his civil rights would be adversely affected. On the other hand, Sh.Shrawan Dogra, learned counsel for the respondents has strenuously contended that the orders of the learned Trial Court are correct. The petitioner and proforma respondents have been given more than ample opportunities to file reply. He further alleges that in fact, the reply which is sought to be filed has been ante dated because such reply if it 3 had been ready could have easily filed on the date when the Court was closing the right of the petitioners to file reply. 5. There is merit in the argument of Sh.Dogra that if such reply had been ready on the date when the order for closing the right to file reply was passed, it could have easily been filed. However, I am dealing here with contempt proceedings which will not only have civil affects but may have penal consequences on the petitioner. He could even be sent to jail it is found that he is guilty of disobeying the orders of the Court. Therefore, I feel that the interest of justice would be served if one opportunity is given to the petitioner and proforma respondents to file their reply. This is subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs which shall be paid on or before the next date in the Trial Court itself. It is made clear that in case the costs are not paid and the reply is not filed on or before the next date fixed in the case then the present petition would be deemed to have been dismissed. 6. It is averred by Sh.Palsra that it is wrongly recorded in the order of the learned District Judge that Happy, respondent No.3 has died. He submits 4 that in fact, it is not Happy but Banti, respondent No.4 who has died. In case an incorrect order has been passed by the learned Trial Court, the petitioners are directed to file an appropriate application for correction of the order before the leaned Trial Court. September 6, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ) (m) Judge