IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.O.C.P. No.898 of 1995 Date of Decision:- 30.1.2008 Smt.Nirmal Mehra ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.H.S.Sethi, Advocate vs. K.S.Sidhu & others ....Respondent(s) through Mr.Tushar Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.3 & 6. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) This contempt petition has been filed alleging inter alia that the ad interim injunction granted by the learned Sub Judge, Ist Class, Amritsar vide his order dated 12.11.1994 (Annexure P-3) has been violated by the respondents. Vide the aforementioned ex parte ad interim injunction, the defendants were restrained from permitting any building activity on mini plots forming part of Plot No.44-A and 45-A, The Mall, Amritsar, without municipal sanction or in violation of Municipal building bye-laws. In response to the show cause notice, the official respondents have taken up the plea that no construction in violation of the building bye-laws has been permitted, except where the Court's orders C.O.C.P. No.898 of 1995 -2- against demolition, have been passed. In view of the aforementioned stand taken by the respondents, it cannot be said that there is any wilful disobedience of the ad interim injunction order. That apart, if the petitioner disputes the stand taken by the respondents, the more appropriate and effective remedy would be to approach the learned Civil Court under Order 39 Rule 2 A CPC. With these observations and directions, this petition is disposed of. Rule discharged. January 30, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE