COCP No.930 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. COCP No.930 of 2010 Date of Decision: 10.1.2011 Suresh Kumar @ Bansi .....Petitioner Vs. J.S. Yadav and others ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. Karamveer Singh Banyana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Dinarpur, Advocate for the respondents. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The petitioner, who was admittedly in occupation of a shop in Yadav Samaj Dharamshala, Kurukshetra Town, filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the respondents from interfering in his possession. On 23.5.2009, Sh.B.S.Walia, Advocate, counsel for the respondents, before the trial court made the following statement :- “ It is stated that the defendants have filed a Ejectment suit Yadav Samaj Sabha Vs. Bansi alias Suresh Kumar against the plaintiff, which is pending in the court of Sh.N.K.Singhal, Civil Judge (S.D.), Kurukshetra and next date is 9.9.2009. So defendant will not dispossess the plaintiff except in due course of law.” COCP No.930 of 2010 2 On the basis of this statement, the Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Kurukshetra, dismissed the suit as withdrawn, but ordered that the respondents would be bound by the statement made by their counsel. The operative part of the order dated 23.5.2009 reads as follows :- “ Heard. In view of the statement made by plaintiff Suresh Kumar, present suit is hereby dismissed as withdrawn. However the defendants would be bound by the statement made by their counsel. File be consigned to records, after due compliance.” The petitioner alleges that despite the statement and the order passed by the Additional Civil Judge, he was dispossessed on 3.1.2010, his board bearing the name “Bansi Tea Stall” was removed and the premises were locked by the respondents. It is prayed that in view of the blatant violation of the order dated 23.5.2009, the respondents should be punished in accordance with the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. Counsel for the respondents, however, states that the respondents have not dispossessed the petitioner, as they have filed a suit for possession. The petitioner is free to open his shop and conduct his business till he is dispossessed in accordance with law. It is further submitted that a similar application filed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure has been dismissed. I have heard counsel for the parties and in view of the statement made by counsel for the respondents that they have not dispossessed the petitioner, the petitioner is free to break open the lock placed on the shop in dispute, enter possession of the shop and conduct his business, subject to COCP No.930 of 2010 3 payment of rent/use and occupation charges, till he is ejected by a court of competent jurisdiction. It is made clear to the respondents that whatever be the nature of their organisation or their influence in society, they have no right to take the law into their own hands. Disposed of accordingly. 10.1.2011 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE