COCP No. 947 of 2008 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … COCP No. 947 of 2008(O&M) Date of decision: November 13, 2009 Daljit Singh Saini .. Petitioner Versus Balbir Kaur wife of Shri Balbir Singh ..Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S.Dhillon, Advocate for the respondent. .. Rakesh Kumar Garg,J(Oral) As per the averments made in this petition, CWP No.1069 of 2005 filed by the petitioner was disposed of by this court vide judgment dated 2.3.2006 which reads as follows:- “Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that although remedial action has already been taken to replace the damaged water pipes and now there is no threat of seepage in the house in the neighbour-hood, yet he would instruct the said respondent to carry out necessary repairs in all the properties, which got affected because of the seepage. If so desired, necessary water-proofing and white washing shall also b got done in the affected portion of their houses. In view of the above, no further orders are called for in the writ petition. The same s disposed of accordingly.” In this contempt petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the representation dated 19.5.2006 made to the respondent, necessary repairs in his house were not effected by the respondent and thus the COCP No. 947 of 2008 2 respondent is guilty of committing contempt of this court. In response to the show cause notice issued by this court, reply has been filed wherein it has been submitted that the respondent-College had carried out necessary repairs as per the orders of this court passed in CWP No.1069 of 2005 and the petitioner had in fact concealed this material fact from the knowledge of this court. It has been pointed out that the orders were passed by this court in CWP No.1069 of 2005, on 2.3.2006 and as per the averments made in this petition, the petitioner had also submitted his request for making necessary repairs on 19.5.2006 vide Annexure P-2 whereas the present contempt petition has been filed in this court on 4.7.2008 and if the repairs had not been effected by the respondent, the petitioner would not have kept mum for such a long time. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of this contempt petition. There is no counter to the pleadings filed by the respondent. Moreover, no reason is forthcoming in the pleadings of the petitioner for approaching this court after a considerable delay of two years, although he had allegedly represented to the respondent on 19.5.2006 for effecting repairs. Keeping in view the aforesaid disputed facts with regard to the effecting of repairs as per the directions of this court, I am not inclined to proceed further in this petition. Rule discharged. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to seek any other appropriate remedy for redressal of his grievance in accordance with law. November 13, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE