Civil Miscellaneous No.21010 of 2007 in CWP No.3801 of 2006 Present: Shri Baltej Singh Sidhu, Advocate, for the applicant – respondent No.2. Issue notice in this application to Mr. Arun Jain, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, for 27.2.2008. It is made clear that the main case shall also be taken up for final disposal. January 21, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.526 of 2007 Present: Shri Vikas Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri R.S. Kundu, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Alleging non-payment of the consequential monetary benefits in terms of the judgment dated July 28, 2004 passed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.2128 of 1990, that this contempt petition has been filed. On asking of this Court, Learned State Counsel has got instructions and has filed a reply – affidavit of Anand Sharma, IAS, Director, Elementary Education, Haryana. As per the averments made in para 3 thereof, all the consequential monetary benefits flowing from the aforementioned judgment have since been released in favour of the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, however, contends that the petitioner is entitled to certain more monetary benefits and a calculation to this effect has already been prepared by him. In view of the fact that the direction issued by this Court has been apparently complied with by the respondents, there appears to be no justification to continue with these contempt proceedings which are accordingly dropped, however, with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the Director, Elementary Education, Haryana regarding the left out monetary benefits, if any, and as and when such a representation is made by the petitioner, the aforementioned authority is directed to consider the said claim and if anything is found due, to release the payment within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such a representation. It is further directed that in case it is found that the petitioner is not entitled to any monetary benefits, a communication to this effect shall also be sent to him. Disposed of. January 21, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.796 of 2007 Present: Shri Kirti Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri G.S. Cheema, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Shri R.S. Kundu, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Shri Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate Shri Vijay Kumar Jindal, Advocate, Local Commission The report submitted by the Local Commission has been perused. In the light of the obstruction caused in the free flow of the nullah, as indicated in the aforementioned report, and the manner in which the garbage is being thrown in the said nullah in the areas falling in the territories of both the States, it appears desirable that a joint meeting of the Chief Secretaries to both the States, as earlier directed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated May 3, 2006, be immediately convened and necessary remedial measures be taken before the adjourned date. Meanwhile, Learned Counsel for the parties may inspect the report, including the photographs, if so required, and thereafter to give their suggestions for effective implementation of the directions already issued by this Court. Shri Vijay Kumar Jindal, learned Local Commission, who is present in Court is requested to supply one set each of the photographs to Learned Counsel for the parties so as to enable them to provide effective assistance to the Court. Adjourned to April 4, 2008. Let a copy each of this order, duly attested under the signatures of the Court Secretary, be supplied to Learned Counsel for the parties, at the earliest, for information and necessary follow up action. January 21, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.848 of 2007 Present: Shri J.P. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri R.S. Kundu, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, who is present in Court, is directed to get instructions in the matter. However, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is directed to supply two copies of this contempt petition, during course of the day, to Shri Kundu. Adjourned to 8.4.2008. January 21, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.1074 of 2007 Present: Shri P.L. Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri R.S. Kundu, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. As per the averments made in para 6 of the reply affidavit filed by respondent No.2, all the consequential monetary benefits flowing from the directions issued by this Court have since been released in favour of the petitioner. In this view of the matter, ti is apparent that the directions issued by this Court have been substantially complied with by the respondents. Consequently, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner that in case she feels that she is entitled to some more monetary claims, she may represent to respondent No.2 and if any such representation is received from her, the said respondent shall consider and dispose of the same and if anything more is found due, shall be released in favour of the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of such a representation. However, it is made clear that if nothing is found due to the petitioner, a communication shall be sent to this effect to the petitioner. January 21, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.1196 of 2007 Present: Shri Vivek Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri G.S. Cheema, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Despite 2-3 opportunities given to the respondents, no reply has been filed. Last opportunity is granted to implement the directions issued by this Court, failing which respondents No.2 and 3 are directed to remain present in Court. Adjourned to 3.4.2008. January 21, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.1492 of 2007 Present: Shri A.S. Bhatti, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri G.S. Cheema, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. No reply has been filed by the respondents. However, Learned State Counsel informs that an application for modification of the order dated July 4, 2006 has been filed, which is stated to be listed on 8.2.2008. Adjourned to 3.3.2008. Meanwhile, the respondents are directed to comply with the orders passed by this Court failing which the 1st respondent shall remain present in Court. January 21, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.1596 of 2007 Present: Shri Dheeraj Bali, Advocate, for the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that the orders passed by this Court have since been complied with, as such this petition has been rendered infructuous. Ordered accordingly. January 21, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.1722 of 2007 Present: S/Shri R.K. Battas & N.K. Sharma, Advocates, for the petitioner. After hearing Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and going through the Civil Court judgment, Annexures P-2 and P-4 on record, I am of the considered view that the passing of the order dated 20.6.2007 (Annexure P-6) by the Collector (ADC), Fatehgarh Sahib, per-se, may not amount to commission of contempt of court as the case has been merely remanded. However, if the authorities concerned ignore the judgments passed by the civil court(s) at the time of taking final decision on merits, the petitioners, if so required, may initiate these proceedings. Needless to say that the petitioner shall be entitled to raise all pleas before the Assistant Collector, who shall be obliged in law to pass appropriate orders, after taking into consideration the same. Dismissed at this stage. January 21, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.1723 of 2007 Present: Shri Amit Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. It is, inter-alia, contended that the ad-interim order dated 30.8.2007, whereby the parties have been directed to maintain status quo, pertains to raising of construction over the subject land and not with regard to sowing or harvesting the crop. Let notice of motion issue to the respondents to show cause as to why proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act be not initiated against them, returnable on 10.4.2008. Personal appearance shall, however, remain exempt till further orders. January 21, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No.4265 of 2007 Present: Shri Sandeep Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. Heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner at length. No case to interfere with the impugned order is made out. This Revision Petition challenging the attachment of the petitioner's land in execution proceedings filed by his daughter-in-law and minor grand-son, is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. However, let show cause notice be issued to the Union of India as to why the concerted efforts made by the civil courts, especially in the present case, to recover the arrears of maintenance from respondent No.3, who is serving in the Indian Army, have been defied. Mrs. Navender P.K. Singh, Learned Counsel, who is present in court, accepts notice on behalf of the UOI. As prayed for by her, adjourned to 3.4.2008. Meanwhile, she is directed to find out the present place of posting of respondent No.3 and to ensure that till further orders, no salary is disbursed to him and the said amount is rather diverted to the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurdaspur so as to satisfy the claim of respondents No.1 and 2 in the pending execution proceedings. Let a copy of this order, duly attested under the signatures of the Bench Secretary, be supplied to the learned Standing Counsel for the UOI, at the earliest, for information and necessary compliance. January 21, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Miscellaneous No.366 of 2008 in C.W.P. No.6674 of 1992 Present: Shri Navneet Singh, Advocate, for the applicant-petitioner. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. The applicant is permitted to withdraw his name from the array of petitioners. The Registry is directed to carry out necessary correction in the memo of parties. C.M. Stands disposed of. January 21, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Miscellaneous No.901-CII of 2008 in C.O.C.P. No.1241 of 2006 Present: Mrs. Navender P.K. Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Notice to the Advocate General, Punjab. Shri G.S. Cheema, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab accepts notice. As requested by him, adjourned to 7.4.2008. January 21, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Miscellaneous No.1117-CII of 2008 in R.F.A. No.109-M of 2006. Present: Shri Rahul Vats, Advocate, for the applicant-respondent. Shri Subhash Ahuja, Advocate, for the appellant. The prayer in this application is to permit the parties to place on record a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent. For the reasons mentioned in the application that during the pendency of this appeal a compromise has been effected between the parties in terms whereof they have decided to part ways amicably, this application is allowed and the accompanying petition is taken on record. C.M. Application stands disposed of. As prayed for by Learned Counsel for the parties, adjourned to 10.4.2008 to enable the parties to make their respective statements. January 21, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.83 of 2008 Present: Shri Kulwinder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Let two copies of this petition be handed over to Shri G.S. Cheema, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, during course of the day, who shall have instructions in the matter on the adjourned date. Adjourned to 10.4.2008. January 21, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.85 of 2008 Present: Ms. Shagun Kathuria, Advocate, for the petitioner. Let four copies of this petition be handed over to Shri G.S. Cheema, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, during course of the day, who shall have instructions in the matter on the adjourned date. Adjourned to 10.4.2008. January 21, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.86 of 2008 Present: Shri Sandeep Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Let four copies of this petition be handed over to Shri Suveer Sheokand, Learned Counsel on the Panel of Union of India, during course of the day, who shall have instructions in the matter on the adjourned date. Adjourned to 7.4.2008. January 21, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.87 of 2008 Present: Shri Sanjay Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Let notice of motion issue to the respondent to show cause as to why proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act be not initiated against him, returnable on 10.3.2008. Personal appearance shall, however, remain exempt till further orders. January 21, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.88 of 2008 Present: Shri Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate, for the petitioner. As prayed for by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, adjourned to 11.3.2008, to enable him to place on record a copy of the award passed by the learned MACT. January 21, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.90 of 2008 Present: Shri S.K. Sud, Advocate, for the petitioners. Let three copies of this petition be handed over to Shri R.S. Kundu, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, during course of the day, who shall have instructions in the matter on the adjourned date. Adjourned to 10.4.2008. January 21, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.91 of 2008 Present: Shri H.N. Sahu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Let four copies of this petition be handed over to Shri R.S. Kundu, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, during course of the day, who shall have instructions in the matter on the adjourned date. Adjourned to 10.4.2008. January 21, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.92 of 2008 Present: Shri H.N. Sahu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Let four copies of this petition be handed over to Shri R.S. Kundu, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, during course of the day, who shall have instructions in the matter on the adjourned date. Adjourned to 10.4.2008. January 21, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.314 of 2008 Date of decision: January 21, 2008. Shakuntla Rani ...Petitioner(s) v. Shanti Rani ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest. Present: Shri K.C. Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 30.11.2005 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kharar whereby an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC by the respondent – plaintiff has been accepted and the petitioner has been restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the respondent – plaintiff over the suit land, as well as the order dated 1.9.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Rupnagar whereby the aforementioned order has been upheld. The petitioner is the daughter-in-law of the respondent plaintiff. Admittedly, the disputed premises, i.e., a residential house was purchased by the respondent – plaintiff vide registered sale deed dated 24.12.1974. The petitioner got married to the son of the respondent – plaintiff on 11.10.1999. According to the respondent, her son, along with the petitioner, has been residing separately. However, due to some unfortunate matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and her husband, the latter is missing and his whereabouts are unknown. As per the allegations, the petitioner wanted to forcibly occupy the house in dispute by throwing out the respondent – plaintiff. This led the respondent to file the present suit in which ad-interim injunction has been granted by both the courts. It may be noticed here that the petitioner's case is that the above stated house is a joint Hindu family property, therefore, she too has a right to live therein. Having heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and after going through the impugned orders, I am of the considered view that no case to interfere with the impugned orders is made out. In the light of the undisputed fact that the house was purchased in the name of the respondent – plaintiff in the year 1974 when the husband of the petitioner was a minor and had contributed nothing towards the purchase of the said house, prima- facie, a case is made out in favour of the respondent – plaintiff who is in possession thereof and would suffer irreparable loss in the event of her forcible dispossession. Balance of convenience also lies in favour of the person who is occupying the house. Consequently, no case to interfere with the impugned order is made out. Dismissed. However, the observations made herein-above shall have no bearing on the merits of the suit. January 21, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge FAO. No.13-M of 2008 (O&M) Present: Shri Krishan Sehajpal, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the reasons mentioned in the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, the same is allowed and the delay of 61 days in re-filing of the appeal is condoned, subject to all just exceptions. Re: Apepal Notice of motion for 26.3.2008. The parties are directed to remain present in Court, however, subject to the condition that the appellant shall bring a demand draft in the name of the respondent in the sum of Rs.20,000/-, failing which the appeal shall stand dismissed. January 21, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.1169 of 2007 Present: Ms. Jyoti Sareen, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri G.S. Cheema, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. As per the averments made in para 2 of the reply – affidavit filed by Pushpinderpal Singh Gill, Assistant Commandant, 36th Battalion, PAP, Bahadurgarh, Patiala, all the retiral benefits have been released in favour of the petitioner, including 100% provisional pension and provisional DCRG. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, however, contends that as against the amount of Rs.1,43,000/-, GPF amounting to Rs.81,727/- only has been released. She further submits that neither a copy of the PPO has been provided to the petitioner nor the benefit of the commuted pension has been released in his favour. Having heard Learned Counsel for the parties and in the light of the fact that substantial part of the direction by this Court has since been complied with by the respondents, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents that the claim of the petitioner regarding balance amount of GPF be considered and if the same is found due, the said amount be also released in his favour within a period of one month. Similarly, if the petitioner applies for commutation of the pension and the same is permissible under the rules, the said amount be also released in his favour without any undue delay. January 21, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Miscellaneous No.975 of 2008 in CWP No.1034 of 2001 Present: Shri S.K. Laddi, Advocate, for the petitioner. After arguing the case for some time, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the application being premature, be dismissed as withdrawn. Ordered accordingly. January 21, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Crl. Miscellaneous No.51050-M of 2007 Present: Shri Sanjay Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri G.S. Cheema, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. The first bail application moved by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by me on 1.10.2007 “with liberty to file a fresh petition”. Since the said application was not dismissed on merits, let this petition be listed as per roster after obtaining appropriate orders from Hon'ble the Chief Justice. January 21, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Crl. Miscellaneous No.94196 of 2007 in Crl. Miscellaneous No.32387-M of 2007 Present: Shri S.S. Majithia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri G.S. Cheema, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Shri K.S. Kahlon, Advocate Learned Counsel for the Petitioners states that since the parties have compromised, this application has been rendered infructuous. Ordered accordingly. January 21, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.1490 of 2003 Present: Shri Ashwani Kumar Chopra, Senior Advocate, with Shri Harminder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri G.S. Cheema, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Shri Balram Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.1. In deference to the order dated September 14, 2006, Mr. Ravinder Singh, Civil Judge (Senior Division) -cum- Inquiry Officer, Jalandhar has sent his report. Mr. G.S. Cheema, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab has filed objections against the aforesaid report by way of an affidavit of Mohinder Singh Kainth, Additional Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur, the then Additional Deputy Commissioner (General), Jalandhar, which is also taken on record. As per the averments made in the affidavit, the above named deponent met with a serious accident on 15.11.2006 and having received multiple fracture/injuries, had to remain hospitalized in the PGI at Chandigarh as well as Dayanand Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana. The deponent, therefore, could not appear before the Inquiry Officer on 12.12.2006, i.e., the date for which he was summoned through notice dated 9.12.2006. This Court's order dated 14.9.2006 crystalized the stand/plea taken by Mohinder Singh Kainth, the then Additional Deputy Commissioner (General), Jalandhar and his version is likely to have material bearing on the issues culled out in para 14 of the afore-stated order. Since in the absence of testimony of Mohinder Singh Kainth, the then Additional Deputy Commissioner (General), Jalandhar, the learned Inquiry Officer could not have reached to a just conclusion, the inquiry report is set aside and the learned Inquiry Officer is directed to send a fresh report after giving proper and sufficient opportunities to Mohinder Singh Kainth or other witnesses. As an abundant precaution, it is clarified that the fresh inquiry report may be based mainly upon the official record/documents with little credence to the oral version of the witnesses. Let the report be sent within a period of two months. Adjourned to 10.4.2008. January 21, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No. of 2008 C.O.C.P. No. of 2008 Present: Shri , Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri G.S. Cheema, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Shri R.S. Kundu, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Shri , Advocate, for the respondents. January 21, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No. of 2008 C.O.C.P. No. of 2008 Present: Shri , Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri G.S. Cheema, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Shri R.S. Kundu, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Shri , Advocate, for the respondents. January 21, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No. of 2008 C.O.C.P. No. of 2008 Present: Shri , Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri G.S. Cheema, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Shri R.S. Kundu, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Shri , Advocate, for the respondents. January 21, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No. of 2008 C.O.C.P. No. of 2008 Present: Shri , Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri G.S. Cheema, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Shri R.S. Kundu, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Shri , Advocate, for the respondents. January 21, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No. of 2008 C.O.C.P. No. of 2008 Present: Shri , Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri G.S. Cheema, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Shri R.S. Kundu, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Shri , Advocate, for the respondents. January 21, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No. of 2008 C.O.C.P. No. of 2008 Present: Shri , Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri G.S. Cheema, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Shri R.S. Kundu, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Shri , Advocate, for the respondents. January 21, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No. of 2008 C.O.C.P. No. of 2008 Present: Shri , Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri G.S. Cheema, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Shri R.S. Kundu, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Shri , Advocate, for the respondents. January 21, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No. of 2008 C.O.C.P. No. of 2008 Present: Shri , Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri G.S. Cheema, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Shri R.S. Kundu, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Shri , Advocate, for the respondents. January 21, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No. of 2008 C.O.C.P. No. of 2008 Present: Shri , Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri G.S. Cheema, Senior Deputy Advocate