CR No.4506 of 2005 & - 1 - COCP No.1337 of 2006 HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.4506 of 2005 & COCP No.1337 of 2006 DATE OF DECISION: 26.08.2009 **** Gurcharan Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. Kuldeep Singh . . . . Respondent **** 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: Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner ***** SURYA KANT J.(ORAL) This order shall dispose of Civil Revision No.4506 of 2005 and COCP No.1337 of 2006 as both are inter-related for the reasons that the contempt petition has been filed against the respondent-plaintiff inter alia alleging his willful disobedience to the interlocutory order dated 18.10.2005 passed by this Court, in the above mentioned revision petition. The respondent (Kuldeep Singh s/o Baldev Singh) has filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the petitioner and his son Tejinder Singh from interfering into or taking forcible possession of the four shops allegedly constructed by the respondent-plaintiff in plot No.113 measuring 3 marlas situate in village Begowal, Tehsil, Bholath, District Kapurthala. The respondent-plaintiff has claimed that the above- mentioned piece of land was allotted to him by the Gram Panchayat Village, Begowal being a landless person and mutation No.34 to that effect has been duly sanctioned in his favour. The allotted land allegedly comprises khasra No.884//19/1/1/(0-3), Khewat No.2094 and Khatoni No.2783 as per jamabandi for the year 2000-01 appended with the main suit. The respondent-plaintiff also moved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC for the grant of ad interim injunction. The Civil Court, having regard to the CR No.4506 of 2005 & - 2 - COCP No.1337 of 2006 documents placed on the file, observed that the respondent-plaintiff is not in possession of 2 shops on the western side and he has also not been able to make out a prima facie case in his favour. The ad interim injunction was declined by Addl. Civil Judge (SD) Kapurthala vide order dated 23.4.2005. The respondent-plaintiff went in appeal. The learned District Judge, Kapurthala vide his order dated 15th June, 2005 observed that allotment of plot No.113 in favour of the respondent-plaintiff by the Gram Panchayat had already been upheld by the Civil Court. Therefore, the respondent-plaintiff was able to make out a prima facie case and since he was apprehending dispossession, the balance of convenience was tilting in his favour. The learned District Judge, accordingly, allowed the appeal; set aside the order of the Civil Court and while accepting the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC, restrained the petitioner-defendant from interfering into the peaceful possession of the respondent-plaintiff over the shops in dispute constructed in plot No.113 except in due course of law. Aggrieved, the petitioner-defendant No.1 has approached this Court. On October 18, 2005, when the matter came up for preliminary hearing, this Court observed:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned lower appellate Court has misconstrued the judgement dated 16.1.1996 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kapurthala, inasmuch as in the said judgement it has been observed that the defendants have proved on file that plots No.112 and 113 were allotted to Tajinder Singh son of petitioner Gurcharan Singh and Kuldeep Singh (respondent) son of Baldev Singh. It is further contended that Baldev Singh and Gurcharan Singh are brothers being the sons of Karam Singh. Therefore, the petitioner is co-sharer with respect to the property in dispute. A reference is also made to the site plan (Annexure A2) to contend that separate shops have been constructed. Notice of motion to the respondent for 23.1.2006. CR No.4506 of 2005 & - 3 - COCP No.1337 of 2006 Status quo with respect to disputed property shall be maintained meanwhile. Sd/-S.S.Saron Judge October 18, 2005” The matter was thereafter taken up for final disposal on more than one occasion. Counsel representing the respondent-plaintiff, however, has now refused to appear statedly for the reason that the respondent-plaintiff has taken away the brief and the counsel has no further instructions in the matter. Be that as it may, I have heard counsel for the petitioner-defendant No.1 and perused the impugned orders. The fact remains that while issuing notice of motion, this Court had directed the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the disputed property. That interim order is operating from the last 4 years. The suit is now stated to be at the plaintiff’s evidence stage. In these circumstances, I am of the considered view that it would be in the interest of justice, if the order dated 18.10.2005 is made absolute and the parties are directed to maintain status quo with respect to the disputed property till the decision of the suit. Counsel for the petitioner, however, points out that the respondent-plaintiff has defied the order of status quo dated 18.10.2005 and made an abortive attempt to take physical possession of the shops in dispute. I am, however, of the considered view that it is not expedient for this Court to accept or deny the possession of either of the parties over the shops in dispute at the time of passing of the order dated 18th October, 2005. The appropriate course would be to relegate the petitioner-defendant to the Civil Court with liberty to move an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC which shall then be decided by the Civil Court in accordance with law. The contempt petition also stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner given above. The necessary follow-up action shall be taken by the Civil Court depending upon its findings of the application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC. Disposed of. CR No.4506 of 2005 & - 4 - COCP No.1337 of 2006 (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 26.08.2009 shonkar