IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. COPC No. 193 of 2010. Decided on: 18th November, 2011. Dhani Ram & another. … Petitioners. Versus Sidharth Acharya. … Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. For the petitioners : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Amit Singh Chandel, Advocate, with Mr. Tarun K. Sharma, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The complaint of the petitioner is that the order dated 20th July, 2010 passed in CMP No. 6414 of 2010 has been willfully violated by the respondent. This Court had granted the interim order, as prayed for. The prayer was for stay of the execution of the orders, Annexure P-2 restraining the 6th respondent from pursuing the remedy of getting the entries changed in view of the order, Annexure P-2. Admittedly, there is no case that the 6th respondent has made any efforts thereafter for changing the entries. The complaint is that the Tehsildar did not refer to the orders passed by this Court and demolished the green house with barbed wire. In the affidavit filed by the respondent, it is stated that there were proceedings pending between the parties under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and he only implemented the orders passed by the Executive Magistrate. It is also stated in the affidavit at para 7 that the respondent had no specific knowledge of the orders passed by the Court and 2 that the orders under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were still in force and that the respondent only implemented the orders under Section 133 Cr.P.C. In the affidavit, it is also stated as follows: “That the replying respondent/contemnor has the highest regard to the Hon’ble Courts as well as this Hon’ble Court and the replying respondent/contemnor cannot even think of disobeying the orders passed by this Hon’ble Court and further replying respondent/contemnor tenders unconditional apology for any lapse or any inadvertence on the part of the replying respondent/contemnor.” 2. The writ petition is still pending. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the apologetic stand taken by the respondent in the affidavit, we find no wilful disobedience or contumacious conduct on the part of the respondent. It is certainly open to the petitioner to pursue his grievances as referred to in the writ petition on merits. 3. The COPC is hence dismissed. Rule is discharged. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 18th November, 2011. (Justice V.K. Ahuja), (tr) Judge. 3