C.O.C.P. No.879 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.O.C.P. No.879 of 2009 (O&M) Decided on : 27-11-2009 Joginder Singh .... Petitioner VERSUS Arjun Singh & others .... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. Present:- Mr. S.S. Brar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Jindal, Addl. A.G., Haryana, for respondent Nos.1 & 2. Dr. Surya Parkash, Advocate, for respondent No.3. RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (Oral). C.M. No.2782-CII of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. C.M. Nos.27722-CII and 27833-CII of 2009. C.Ms. are allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Documents are taken on record. C.O.C.P. No.879 of 2009 As per the averments made in this petition, the petitioner filed Civil Suit No.216, dated 29.11.2006, for permanent C.O.C.P. No.879 of 2009 (O&M) -2- injunction, restraining the defendant (now respondent No.3) or his agents from interfering in his peaceful possession of the property in dispute or restraining him in any manner dispossessing the petitioner from the agricultural land owned and possessed by him as detailed in the head-note of the civil suit. In the aforesaid civil suit, the petitioner was granted interim order on his application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC as under:- “Both the parties to the suit are directed to maintain status quo over the suit property, in all respects till the decision of the suit on merits.” However, an appeal was carried out against the aforesaid interim order and the District Judge, Fatehbad, vide order dated 26.9.2008 passed in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.16 of 2007, restrained the defendant/respondent from interfering in possession of the plaintiff/petitioner over the suit land till the final decision of the suit. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid interim order passed in his favour, is still operative and the respondents have violated the aforesaid order by harvesting crop of the petitioner and therefore, they are liable to be punished under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. In response to the show cause notice, reply on behalf of respondent No.3 has been filed, wherein the allegations levelled in the contempt petition have been denied, and it is averred that the C.O.C.P. No.879 of 2009 (O&M) -3- petitioner had already filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2 (A) CPC in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tohana, for taking appropriate action against the respondents for disobedience of the order dated 13.6.2007 passed by Sh. Bhupinder Nath, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tohana on the same facts. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 has also brought to the notice of this court that in the aforesaid application under Order 39 Rule 2 (A) CPC, the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Tohana, vide order dated 17.4.2009 has framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the respondent had intentionally violated the order dated 13.6.2007 passed in a suit titled as Joginder Singh etc. Versus Surjit Singh?OPP 2. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form?OPR 3. Whether the petitioner has no cause of action and locus-standi to file and maintain the present petition?OPR 4. Whether the petitioner has concealed the true and material facts from the Court?OPR 5. Whether the Civil Court has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present petition?OPR 6. Relief.” It has also been brought to the notice of this court that the aforesaid application is still pending for the evidence of the C.O.C.P. No.879 of 2009 (O&M) -4- petitioner. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, it has been argued that in view of the fact that the petitioner is already pursuing his remedy under Order 39 Rule 2 (A) CPC, therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner could not controvert the fact that for the same relief the petitioner had already filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2 (A) CPC in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tohana, and the same is still pending. In view of the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to proceed further in this contempt petition. Rule discharged. However, the petitioner is at liberty to pursue his remedy under Order 39 Rule 2(A) CPC, which is pending. 27th November, 2009. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) Monika JUDGE