IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.2267 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: December 23, 2009. Subhash Chand Gupta ...Petitioner(s) v. Suresh Pal @ Suresh Kumar ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Shri Karan Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral): As per the averments of the petitioner before this Court, the respondents have deliberately disobeyed the injunction order issued by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Jagadhri and upheld by the Additional District Judge, Jagadhri whereby respondent No.1 was restrained from interfering into his possession over the suit land except in due course of law. Earlier the petitioner filed COCP No.870 of 2008 before this Court. The allegation of the petitioner before this Court is that respondent No.1 has cut the crop with the help of respondent No.2. In response to the show cause notice issued in the aforesaid case, reply was filed in which the allegations levelled in the contempt petition were denied. Keeping in view the controversy in hand and the fact that the petitioner had an effective remedy under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC, this Court discharged the rule. However, liberty was granted to the petitioner to seek any other remedy in accordance with law for redressal of his grievance. It may also be noticed that no one had appeared on behalf of the petitioner at the time of final hearing in the aforementioned contempt petition. Present contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner again on the basis of the same set of facts and allegations. However, the petitioner has further submitted in this petition that rule was discharged in the earlier contempt petition as the respondents had misled the court but the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner was unable to substantiate the aforesaid contention. In fact, the petitioner in para 14 to 16 of the petition has mentioned with regard to proceedings allegedly taken by this Court on 17.9.2009 in COCP No.870 of 2008 without placing on record any such proceedings. On the asking of the court, learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that those proceedings, as mentioned by the petitioner in this petition, are not a part of the record. Thus, I find no reasons to initiate fresh contempt proceedings on the same set of facts on the basis of which COCP No.870 of 2008 has already been dismissed. Even the submissions made by the petitioner in para 16 of the present contempt petition are not supported by Annexures P-4 and P-7 as the respondent is alleging his possession over the land in dispute in both the documents i.e., Annexure P-4 and Annexure P-7 and, thus, the petitioner has taken a completely false stand for filing this petition. This petition is accordingly dismissed with costs assessed at Rs.5,000/-. December 23, 2009. [ Rakesh Kumar Garg ] kadyan Judge