IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.979 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: November 10, 2009. Birender Kumar ...Petitioner(s) v. Hawa Singh Bhoria & Anr. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Shri Harkesh Manuja, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Jai Vir Yadav, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral): Notice of motion to show cause as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against respondent No.2 alone, was issued only for a limited purpose of returning the articles, if any, recovered at the spot, while taking possession in terms of a lawful decree passed in his favour. In response to the show cause notice, respondent No.2 has filed his reply by submitting therein as under:- “That in reply to this para it is submitted that whatever goods/articles were found at the spot during the execution proceedings, the same were handed over by the official executing the warrant of possession (Naib Tehsildar) to Shri Ram Kishan r/o Palheri as is clear from the document annexed with the petition as Annexure P-2. It is further submitted that none of the goods taken in possession at the time of execution of warrant is in possession of the answering deponent but is with Shri Ram Krishan aforesaid. It is further humbly submitted that in respect of the goods in question petitioner has also moved before the learned executing court for release of the goods, it is reliably learnt.” There is no counter to the reply filed by respondent No.2. In view of the aforesaid reply, which is not controverted, 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 return of his goods which were allegedly taken into possession by the official while executing warrants of possession. Disposed of. November 10, 2009. [ Rakesh Kumar Garg ] kadyan Judge