IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.O.C.P. No. 1406 of 2003 Date of Decision: July 26, 2011 Suresh Kumar ….Petitioner Versus Sh. S.N. Dhiman and another … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: None Alok Singh, J. I have gone through the record. The brief facts of the present case are that petitioner had filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from dispossessing and demolishing the construction raised by him on the suit land. Vide order dated 21.05.2002, the learned Trial Court passed an order for maintaining status quo by the parties till further orders and further vide order dated 27.08.2003 restrained the defendants from dispossessing and demolishing the construction raised by COCP No. 1406 of 2003 the petitioner on the suit land till the final decision of the suit. The allegations of the petitioner in the present contempt petition are that despite the order passed by the Civil Court, respondents intentionally and deliberately demolished the construction raised by the petitioner on the property in question to which the status quo order was passed by the Civil Court. To rebut the averments made by the petitioner in his contempt petition, respondent No.2 in his reply, has specifically stated that respondent has not done any demolition on the suit property after passing of the stay order by the learned Civil Court. It is further submitted by the respondent in his reply that the petitioner in the garb of stay order has extended his construction and has carried out fresh construction over the suit property. Admittedly, the matter is pending for adjudication before the Civil Court. The petitioner has not produced any evidence to show that the respondent after passing of the status quo order, has demolished the suit property, rather it is the case of the respondent that it is the petitioner who in the garb of status quo order has extended his construction and carried out fresh construction over the suit property. If it is so, the question of demolition of the construction by the respondents does 2 COCP No. 1406 of 2003 not arise. It is for the petitioner to prove that after passing of the status quo order, respondent has intentionally violated the order passed by the Trial Court. No Local Commissioner has been appointed who could visit the spot and report that the demolition has been done at the spot at the instance of the respondent. The oral averments of the petitioner have been rebutted by the respondents by way of reply. In view of this, petitioner has miserably failed to establish on record that the respondent has violated the orders of the Civil Court in any manner and as such, no contempt is made out. Present petition stands dismissed and notice served on the respondents stands discharged. July 26, 2011 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 3