COCP No.210 of 2008 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.210 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: October 21, 2009. Yadwinder Singh & Anr. ...Petitioner(s) v. Vijay Kumar & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: None for the petitioners. Shri Manohar Dadwal, Advocate, for the respondents. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral): As per the averments made in this petition, the petitioners owned some land jointly with the respondents and partition proceedings were pending before the revenue authorities. On 5.5.2002, Assistant Collector First Grade proposed mode of partition and the same was sanctioned vide order dated 16.12.2002. One Amar Singh had filed an appeal against the aforesaid order which was dismissed vide order dated 5.3.2004. His appeal was dismissed as he had sold his share to the respondents during the pendency of his appeal. After dismissal of appeal, the Assistant Collector First Grade proceeded further with partition. Respondent – Vijay Kumar filed some objections which were rejected and partition was ordered vide order dated 11.10.2004. Appeal filed by the respondents against the said order was dismissed by the Collector, Mukerian COCP No.210 of 2008 -: 2 :- vide his order dated 2.8.2005. The respondents filed ROR No.382 of 2007 which was disposed of vide order dated 28.11.2007 and the revision petition was accepted. All the aforesaid orders dated 11.10.2004, 2.8.2005 and 28.11.2007 were set aside and the case was remanded to the Assistant Collector First Grade, Mukerian with the direction to decide partition case strictly in accordance with the mode of partition sanctioned vide order dated 16.12.1992. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order dated 28.11.2007 by filing CWP No.18996 of 2007 and this court vide order dated 17.12.2007 stayed the operation of the Annexure P-5 (order dated 28.11.2007) remanding the matter to the Assistant Collector First Grade, Mukerian, and also restrained respondents No.2 to 4 from raising any construction on the land falling to their share. The grievance of the petitioner before this court is that the respondents are guilty of contempt of this court as they have violated the order dated 17.12.2007 as they have raised construction over the disputed land during operation of the said order. In response to the show cause notice issued by this court, reply has been filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 wherein it has been specifically stated that the alleged construction on the site in dispute had already been raised prior to 17.12.2007 and thereafter no construction was raised by the respondents. It is pertinent to mention here that no rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner to controvert the averments made by the respondents in their affidavit. On 10.12.2008, no one was present on behalf of the petitioner and after observing that even on the last three dates there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner, this court dropped the COCP No.210 of 2008 -: 3 :- contempt proceedings. The petitioner filed Civil Misc. No.241-CII of 2009 for recalling the aforesaid order which was allowed vide order dated 20.5.2009 and the case was ordered to be listed for arguments on 3.9.2009. On 3.9.2009, learned counsel for the petitioners though was present but was not ready for arguments and in these circumstances, the case was ordered to be listed for today. Today, a written request has been placed on record on behalf of the petitioners for adjournment, without obtaining no objection from the counsel for the respondents and even no one is present on behalf of the petitioners. Thus, it seems that the petitioners are not interested in pursuing this matter. It is also relevant to mention that the Civil Writ Petition No.18996 of 2007 has been disposed of by this Court on 23.4.2009 by setting aside the order Annexure P-5 and the parties were directed to appear before the Financial Commissioner who was directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after hearing both the parties. Thus, keeping in view all the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners are using the threat of contempt against the respondents for extraneous reasons, which is not permissible. Consequently, the present contempt petition is dismissed with costs which are assessed at Rs.5,000/-. Rule discharged. October 21, 2009. [ Rakesh Kumar Garg ] kadyan Judge