COCP No. 2174 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No. 2174 of 2009 Date of decision:- 30.11.2010 Naresh Kumar and another ......petitioners vs. Bishna Ram and others ......respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: - Mr. V. B. Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Ravinder Jain, Advocate for respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J (ORAL) The grievance of the petitioners is that the interim order passed by this Court on 15.4.2009 directing the parties to maintain status quo regarding the possession has been violated by the respondents. The plaintiff-respondents have filed a suit for permanent injunction along with an application for grant of ad interim injunction. Learned trial Court allowed the said application. The appeal against the said order was filed. During the pendency of the appeal, an application was filed by the plaintiffs to provide police help to implement the order dated 11.9.2008 granting ad interim injunction. The order passed by learned first Appellate Court became the subject matter of the challenge before this Court in Civil Revision No. 4239 of 2009 wherein the aforesaid order of status quo was granted. The said revision petition has been finally decided on 18.11.2009 and this Court noticed that the suit of the plaintiffs has been COCP No. 2174 of 2009 -2- dismissed as having been rendered infructuous and the petitioners were given liberty to file an independent suit to assert their rights, as the learned Courts below have not determined any lis between the parties. The grievance of the petitioners is that the order of status quo has been violated by the respondents, therefore, the respondents have committed the contempt of Court. The order of status quo is necessarily dependent upon a finding that which party was in the possession on the date, the order was passed. It is a disputed question of fact and liberty has been given to the petitioners to file the independent suit to decide the said question. It is admitted by Mr. Aggarwal that the petitioners have in fact filed an independent suit for recovery of the price of crops allegedly harvested by respondents. Thus, the orders of status quo passed by this Court requires factual determination for which the petitioners have availed the remedy of the Civil Court. In view of the above, I do not find any case is made out to continue with the present contempt petition. Disposed of in the above terms. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 30.11.2010 preeti