C.O.C.P. No.1651 of 2007 Present: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dadwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri S.S. Sahu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. The petitioner had filed Crl. Miscellaneous No.15384-M of 2007, which was disposed of with a direction to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Rupnagar to get the complaint/legal notice, sent by the petitioner, verified from some senior police official. Alleging non-compliance of the aforesaid order, this contempt petition has been filed. On asking of the court, Learned State Counsel has got instructions and has filed an affidavit of Praveen Kumar Sinha, Senior Superintendent of Police, Rupnagar and as per the averments made therein, the complaint made by the petitioner has already been got verified and no substance has been found in the allegations contained therein. In this view of the matter, no further action is called for. This petition is accordingly disposed of, however, with liberty to the petitioner to apply to the police authorities to supply him a copy of the inquiry report, if so required, and if any such application is moved by him, the respondents are directed to give a certified copy of the inquiry report. January 29, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.1674 of 2007 Present: Mrs. Sonia G. Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Shri M.S. Sindhu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. After arguing the case for some time, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also realizes that the writ petition filed by the petitioners was erroneously disposed of in terms of Jai Narain Kaushik v. State of Haryana's case (CWP No.7037 of 2004) on a wrong statement made by the State Counsel. She fairly states that the order passed in the petitioner's case in terms of Jai Narain Kaushik's case cannot be implemented. In this view of the matter, she seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to approach the Writ Court for recall/modification of the order. Disposed of. Rule discharged. January 29, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge FAO No246-M of 2007 (O&M) Present: Shri Vivek Suri, Advocate, for the appellant. Shri M.L. Sarin, Senior Advocate, with Shri Vivek Sood, Advocate, for the respondent. Civil Miscellaneous No.1740-CII of 2008 Notice of the application to Learned Counsel for the Respondent. Mr. Vivek Sood, Advocate, accepts notice. Re: Appeal Heard. Learned Counsel for the parties are in agreement that the matrimonial dispute has since been amicably resolved in terms of the settlement dated 25.1.2008, which is Mark-A and is taken on record. Learned Counsel for the parties further state that appellant as well as the respondent are present in Court and they reiterate and acknowledge the settlement arrived at between them. In terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties, Learned Counsel for the appellant withdraws the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn, however, with a direction that both the parties shall adhere to the terms and conditions as contained in the settlement, Mark-A, which shall be treated as part of the decree. Application as well as the appeal accordingly stand disposed of. January 29, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No. 134 of 2008 Present: Shri Gurcharan Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Let notice of motion issue to the respondents to show cause as to why proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act be not initiated against them, returnable on 28.4.2008. Personal appearance shall, however, remain exempt till further orders. January 29, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.137 of 2008 Present: Shri K.L. Dhingra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Let notice of motion issue to the respondents to show cause as to why proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act be not initiated against them, returnable on 28.4.2008. Personal appearance shall, however, remain exempt till further orders. January 29, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.135 of 2008 Present: Shri Ravi Verma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Let three copies of this petition be handed over to Shri M.S. Sindhu, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, during course of the day, who shall have instructions in the matter on the adjourned date. Adjourned to 27.3.2008. January 29, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.136 of 2008 Present: Shri S.K. Sud, Advocate, for the petitioner. Let two copies of this petition be handed over to Shri S.S. Sahu, learned Assistant Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, during course of the day, who shall have instructions in the matter on the adjourned date. Adjourned to 27.3.2008. January 29, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.140 of 2008 Present: Shri M.L. Sachdeva, Advocate, for the petitioner. Let two copies of this petition be handed over to Shri S.S. Sahu, learned Assistant Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, during course of the day, who shall have instructions in the matter on the adjourned date. Adjourned to 27.3.2008. January 29, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.139 of 2008 Present: Shri M.L. Sachdeva, Advocate, for the petitioner. Let two copies of this petition be handed over to Shri S.S. Sahu, learned Assistant Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, during course of the day, who shall have instructions in the matter on the adjourned date. Adjourned to 27.3.2008. January 29, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.138 of 2008 Present: Shri M.L. Sachdeva, Advocate, for the petitioner. Let two copies of this petition be handed over to Shri S.S. Sahu, learned Assistant Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, during course of the day, who shall have instructions in the matter on the adjourned date. Adjourned to 27.3.2008. January 29, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No.549 of 2008 Present: Shri Yadvinder Singh Turka, Advocate, for the petitioner. It is, inter-alia, contended that the arrears of rent, as assessed by the Rent Controller, were deposited by the petitioner on 25.4.2006 and the delay of five days had occurred inadvertently due to bona fide wrong legal advice. Notice of motion for 28.4.2008. Meanwhile, subject to the petitioner's depositing the monthly rent, as assessed by the Rent Controller, on or before the 10th day of every calendar month, execution of the ejectment decree shall remain stayed. January 29, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No.548 of 2008 Present: Shri Yadvinder Singh Turka, Advocate, for the petitioner. It is, inter-alia, contended that the arrears of rent, as assessed by the Rent Controller, were deposited by the petitioner on 25.4.2006 and the delay of five days had occurred inadvertently due to bona fide wrong legal advice. Notice of motion for 28.4.2008. Meanwhile, subject to the petitioner's depositing the monthly rent, as assessed by the Rent Controller, on or before the 10th day of every calendar month, execution of the ejectment decree shall remain stayed. January 29, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No.550 of 2008 Present: Shri Surender Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner. After arguing the case at length on merits and having realized that this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree, more so when it is the admitted case of the petitioner himself that the suit property is a Wakf property, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the cost of the subject land to the Wakf Board, as may be assessed by the revenue authorities. In order to explore the possibility of an agreed order in terms of the offer made by the petitioner, let notice of motion issue to the respondent for 20.3.2008. Meanwhile, dispossession of the petitioner shall remain stayed. January 29, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Crl. Misc. No.3955 of 2008 in Crl. Miscellaneous No.77987-M of 2006 Present: Shri D.K. Bhatti, Advocate, for the applicant-petitioner. After hearing Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and for the reasons mentioned in the application and taking a lenient view in the matter, the order dated December 03, 2007 is modified to the extent that the petitioner is permitted to surrender before the learned trial court at Phagwara on or before 8.2.2008. Disposed of. Copy dasti on usual charges. January 29, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.102 of 1992 Present: Shri Sham Lal, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondent. This contempt petition has been filed alleging, inter-alia, that the order dated July 18, 1991 passed by this Court in CWP No.7368 of 1988 is being deliberately disobeyed by the respondent. The above stated judgment of the learned Single Judge was impugned by the Union of India in LPA No.859 of 1992. Consequently, vide order dated 20.8.1992 as well as the subsequent order dated 14.12.2006, this contempt petition was adjourned to await the decision in the aforementioned LPA. The above stated LPA has since been allowed by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 18.10.2007 and as a consequence thereto, the judgment dated 18.7.1991 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.7368 of 1988 stands set aside. For the reasons afore-stated, this contempt petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. January 29, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.157 of 1992 Present: Shri Kapil Kakkar, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondent. This contempt petition has been filed alleging, inter-alia, that the order dated April 12, 1991 passed by this Court in CWP No.773 of 1990 is being deliberately disobeyed by the respondent. In an identical matter, a judgment dated July 18, 1991, rendered by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.7368 of 1988 has been challenged by the Union of India in LPA No.859 of 1992. The contempt proceedings bearing COCP No.102 of 1992, for alleged violation of the order dated July 19, 1991 passed in CWP No.7368 of 1988, stood adjourned to await the decision in the aforementioned LPA. Vide order dated 27.7.1992, these proceedings were ordered to be clubbed with COCP No.102 of 1992. The above stated LPA has since been allowed by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 18.10.2007 and as a consequence thereto, the judgment dated 18.7.1991 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.7368 of 1988 stands set aside. For the reasons afore-stated, this contempt petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. January 29, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.215 of 1992 Present: Shri Sham Lal, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondent. This contempt petition has been filed alleging, inter-alia, that the order dated 6.9.1991 passed by this Court in CWP No.2556 of 1991 is being deliberately disobeyed by the respondent. In an identical matter, a judgment dated July 18, 1991, rendered by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.7368 of 1988 came up for challenge by the Union of India in LPA No.859 of 1992. The contempt proceedings bearing COCP No.102 of 1992, for alleged violation of the order dated July 19, 1991 passed in CWP No.7368 of 1988, stood adjourned to await the decision in the aforementioned LPA. Vide order dated 27.5.1992, these proceedings were ordered to be clubbed with COCP No.102 of 1992. The above stated LPA has since been allowed by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 18.10.2007 and as a consequence thereto, the judgment dated 18.7.1991 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.7368 of 1988 stands set aside. For the reasons afore-stated, this contempt petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. January 29, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.390 of 1993 Present: Shri Sudhir Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri S.S. Sahu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Shri M.L. Saggar, Senior Advocate with Shri G.P. Vashishth, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. This contempt petition was adjourned to await the decision in Crl. Miscellaneous No.4995-M of 1993. The above stated Crl. Miscellaneous petition, however, was dismissed as abated by this Court vide order dated July 13, 2002 as the petitioner had expired. Learned Counsel for the parties further inform that during the pendency of these contempt proceedings, respondent No.2 has also died. In the very nature of the controversy, the same cannot be adjudicated upon in these contempt proceedings, which is accordingly disposed of as having become infructuous. Rule discharged. January 29, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.572 of 2003 Present: Shri Sandeep Moudgil, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents. It is stated by Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Learned Counsel for the respondents, that Civil Appeal No.8673 of 2003 is still pending in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The said Appeal is stated to be not on the Regular Board. In this view of the matter, this contempt petition is disposed of at this stage, however, with liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh petition after the decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, if so required or advised. Rule discharged. January 29, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.596 of 2003 Present: Shri R.N. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri M.S. Sindhu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. As prayed for by Learned State Counsel, to enable him to find out the outcome of the SLP No.1865 of 2004 and/or other SLP(s), if any, in such like matters, adjourned to 27.2.2008. January 29, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.1597 of 2004 Present: Shri G.S. Bal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri S.S. Sahu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. This contempt petition has been filed alleging, inter-alia, non- compliance/disobedience of the judgment dated 24.8.2004 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.7209 of 2004. The State of Punjab has preferred SLP © No.19713 of 2003 in the Hon'ble Supreme Court in which the present contempt proceedings have been stayed. The above stated SLP is still pending adjudication. In this view of the matter, this contempt petition is disposed of at this stage, however, with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh contempt petition, if so required or advised, after the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Rule discharged. January 29, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.465 of 2003 Date of decision: January 29, 2008. Harjinder Singh & Ors. ...Petitioner(s) v. Shri Chander Singh, IAS & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of 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. Present: Shri Vikas Chatrath, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri M.S. Sindhu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - This order shall dispose of COCP No.465, 835 and 1523 of 2003 as the same have arisen out of somewhat similar orders passed by this Court. The petitioners are employees of the State of Haryana. They approached this Court to extend the benefit of the Haryana Civil Services (Assured Career Progression) Rules, 1998 (ACP grade) to them. The matter was decided by this Court in their favour, however, the State of Haryana had preferred SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Consequently, these contempt petitions were adjourned sine-die to await the decision of the Apex Court. The matter has now been finally decided by the Apex Court in the case reported as Commissioner & Secretary to Govt. of Haryana & Ors. v. Ram Sarup Ganda & Ors., 2007(3) RSJ 154. Consequently, these contempt petitions are disposed of with a clarificatory direction to the respondents that in case the above mentioned judgment of the Apex Court has not been implemented qua the petitioners so far, let the needful be now done within a period of two months and the consequential monetary benefits, to which the petitioners are found entitled, be released in their favour within the aforementioned period. Rule discharged. January 29, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.835 of 2003 Present: Shri D.S. Rawat, Advocate, for the petitioners. Shri M.S. Sindhu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. For orders, see COCP No.465 of 2003. Rule discharged. January 29, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.1523 of 2003 Present: Shri Raman B. Garg, Advocate, for the petitioners. Shri M.S. Sindhu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. For orders, see COCP No.465 of 2003. Rule discharged. January 29, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.539 of 2008 Date of decision: January 29, 2008. Onkar Ram ...Petitioner(s) v. Smt. Parmeshwari Devi ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of 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. Present: Shri Ashok Kumar Khunger, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 23.10.2007 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fazilka whereby an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC moved by the petitioner to amend his written statement, has been dismissed. The respondent – plaintiff has filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell. In his written statement, the petitioner – defendant has already taken a preliminary objection to the effect that “the agreement to sell in question is a fabricated document, which has been prepared on the blank signed stamp paper obtained by the plaintiff in lieu of security of her land, leased out to the defendant”. In para 2 of the written statement, the petitioner – defendant has elaborated the events and circumstances in which the blank papers were allegedly given to the sons of the respondent – plaintiff. The petitioner – defendant thereafter moved an application for amendment of his written statement with the plea that, “now it has been revealed that the plaintiff has also prepared an agreement to sell on behalf of the defendant on 6.1.2003 regarding 15 kanal 15 marls out of the suit property for an amount of Rs.2,30,000/- per acre in connivance with witness of the agreement Sohan Lal”. The above stated amendment, however, has been declined by the learned trial court after observing that the plaintiff's evidence has already started and there is no explanation as to why the averments with regard to the alleged previous agreement dated 6.1.2003 could not be made in the written statement. After hearing Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and upon perusal of the material on record, I am of the considered view that the amendment sought by the petitioner appears to be superfluous as he had already taken a stand that no agreement to sell was executed between the parties and the plaintiff has allegedly fabricated some agreement on blank papers. With a view to substantiate the allegation of “fabrication”, it is obvious that the petitioner – defendant can produce/lead the relevant evidence, on the basis of which the inference of alleged “fabrication” can be drawn. With these observations, disposed of. January 29, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.535 of 2008 Date of decision: January 29, 2008. Ram Karan & Anr. ...Petitioner(s) v. M/s Lubhawani Estate pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of 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. Present: Shri Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 20.11.2007 whereby the petitioners' defence has been struck off due to non- filing of the written statement. The case has thereafter been adjourned to 21.4.2008 for the plaintiff's evidence. I have also gone through the previous orders dated 20.7.2007 and 7.11.2007. In the peculiar facts and circumstances when one more opportunity can be granted to the petitioners without disturbing the time schedule fixed for plaintiff's evidence, I do not deem it appropriate to call upon the respondent – plaintiff as no immeasurable prejudice is likely to be caused to it. As may be seen from the orders dated 20.7.2007 and 7.11.2007, after granting one opportunity to the petitioners to file their written statement, the second opportunity was also granted only on payment of costs. On the 3rd date the impugned order has been passed. In these circumstances, it is too difficult to draw an inference that the petitioners have attempted to delay the proceedings. There was, thus, hardly any justification to strike off their defence. Consequently, the impugned order dated 20.11.2007 is set aside and the petitioners are permitted to file their written statement on or before 6.2.2008. Thereafter, the respondent – plaintiff, if so desired, may file its replication on or before 29.2.2008. Though it does not find mention in the order dated 20.11.2007, however, it appears that the trial court has already framed the issues. It is accordingly directed that in the light of the written statement and the replication, if any, to be filed by the parties, if any additional issue(s) arise for consideration, the same shall also be framed on or before 15.3.2008. The aforesaid schedule would obviously ensure that the date for plaintiff's evidence already fixed by the trial court is not disturbed. Disposed of. Dasti on usual charges. January 29, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No. of 2008 C.O.C.P. No. of 2008 Present: Shri , Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri S.S. Sahu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Shri M.S. Sindhu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Shri , Advocate, for the respondents. January 29, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No. of 2008 C.O.C.P. No. of 2008 Present: Shri , Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri S.S. Sahu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Shri M.S. Sindhu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Shri , Advocate, for the respondents. January 29, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No. of 2008 C.O.C.P. No. of 2008 Present: Shri , Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri S.S. Sahu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Shri M.S. Sindhu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Shri , Advocate, for the respondents. January 29, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No. of 2008 C.O.C.P. No. of 2008 Present: Shri , Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri S.S. Sahu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Shri M.S. Sindhu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Shri , Advocate, for the respondents. January 29, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No. of 2008 C.O.C.P. No. of 2008 Present: Shri , Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri S.S. Sahu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Shri M.S. Sindhu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Shri , Advocate, for the respondents. January 29, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No. of 2008 C.O.C.P. No. of 2008 Present: Shri , Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri S.S. Sahu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Shri M.S. Sindhu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Shri , Advocate, for the respondents. January 29, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No. of 2008 C.O.C.P. No. of 2008 Present: Shri , Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri S.S. Sahu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Shri M.S. Sindhu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Shri , Advocate, for the respondents. January 29, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No. of 2008 C.O.C.P. No. of 2008 Present: Shri , Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri S.S. Sahu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Shri M.S. Sindhu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Shri , Advocate, for the respondents. January 29, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge