CR No.5315 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.5315 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.8.2010 Nar Singh and others ......Petitioner(s) Versus Gram Panchayat and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Sanjay Verma, Advocate for the petitioners. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. CM No.21367-CII of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CR No.5315 of 2010 This order shall dispose of two revision petitions i.e. CR No.5315 and 5316 of 2010. For the sake of convenience, facts are taken from CR No.5315 of 2010. As per the averments made in this petition, Civil Suit No.295 of 1995 titled as “Raj Kumar and others v. Gram Panchayat, village Bhaupur was decreed vide order dated 7.4.1995 regarding the suit property against respondent No.1-Gram Panchayat restraining it from interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioners and respondent No.1 was also restrained from dispossessing the petitioners from the suit property except in due course of law. Since the respondent-Gram Panchayat was adamant to dispossess the petitioners from the land in dispute without any right or title, the applicant-petitioners moved an application under Order 21 Rule 32 read with Section 151 CPC (vide Annexure P-2) stating therein that the respondents therein were liable to be detained in civil imprisonment and CR No.5315 of 2010 (O&M) 2 the property of the respondents was also liable to be attached for intentionally and knowingly violating the judgment and decree dated 7.4.1995. The petitioners moved another application before the trial Court to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents vide application dated 28.1.2002(Annexure P-3). Both these applications stood dismissed vide separate orders dated 6.11.2009 passed by the trial Court attached as Annexures P-4 and P-6 holding that the work was got done by the Government Officers who were not a party to the suit and that there was no violation of the Court orders by the respondent-Gram Panchayat. The petitioner filed appeal against the aforesaid orders dated 6.11.2009 which was also dismissed vide impugned order dated 20.5.2010 holding that the appeal was not maintainable against the orders dated 6.11.2009. Both the revision petitions have been directed against the aforesaid orders passed by the trial Court as well as the Lower Appellate Court. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has very fairly stated that order dated 6.11.2009 was not appealable before the Additional District Judge, Panipat and therefore, no fault can be found with the aforesaid order dated 20.5.2010. Challenging the order dated 6.11.2009, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the trial Court erred at law while dismissing the applications Annexures P-2 as well as Annexure P-3. He again admitted that same relief was being claimed in both the applications i.e. Annexures P-2 and P-3 but argued that the same have been dismissed against the facts established on record as enough evidence has come on record to show that two streets have been constructed at the spot by the respondents which is clearly in violation of the judgment and decree dated 7.4.1995 and therefore, the respondents were liable to be proceeded CR No.5315 of 2010 (O&M) 3 against under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC for violation of the aforesaid orders. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders. Admittedly, respondents No.2 and 3 were not a party in the Civil Court and the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out as to in which manner the judgment and decree dated 7.4.1995 can be executed against the aforesaid respondents under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC. Again learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to challenge the findings of the trial Court to the effect that the streets had been built by the Government officials under the direction of the higher Authorities and Gram Panchayat had nothing to do with the brick paving of the aforesaid streets. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in these petitions. Both the petitions are dismissed. August 23, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE