IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.O.C.P. No. 1163 of 1999 Date of Decision: July 22, 2011 Raj Kumar ….Petitioner Versus Babu Lal … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: None. Alok Singh, J. I have gone through the record. The brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent in the Court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Chandgiarh, with a prayer restraining the respondent/defendant from raising construction in front court yard of the house. The petitioner further prayed, in the suit, that respondent be also directed to pay half of water and electricity charges from the date of agreement. On 06.09.1997, respondent appeared before the Court and COCP No. 1163 of 1999 furnished an undertaking that he will not raise any construction in front court yard and further gave undertaking that he will pay half of water and electricity charges as per the family settlement dated 13.07.1996. On the undertaking given by the respondent, the suit was withdrawn on 06.09.1997 and the learned Sub Judge has disposed of the suit while passing the following order:- “Thereafter the learned counsel for the plaintiff had made statement that in view of the statement made by the defendant, he may be allowed to withdraw the present suit. In view of the statement made by the defendant who is present in person as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff, the present suit stands dismissed as withdrawn and parties shall be bound by their respective statements. File be consigned to the record room.” The allegation of the petitioner is that inspite of the undertaking given by the respondent before the Civil Court and repeated requests made by the petitioner, respondent has not made the payment of electricity and water charges qua his share and thus, he violated the orders of the Civil Court. In reply, respondent has submitted that petitioner is his younger brother and at the time of passing of the order by the Civil Court, he was not supplied with copy of the 2 COCP No. 1163 of 1999 plaint by the petitioner and in good faith and close relations and without going to any details, he signed his statement. He has further submitted that he has been paying his due share but the petitioner who received the bills did not deposit the same. Petitioner has not rebutted the averments made by the respondent that he is regularly paying his due to the petitioner. Moreover, there is no documentary evidence on record which shows that the respondent had violated the orders of the Civil Court in any manner. Moreover, petitioner has alternate remedy for the execution of the order. Thus, no case of contempt of Court is made out. Present petition stands dismissed and notice served on the respondents stands discharged. July 22, 2011 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 3