COCP No.67 of 1993 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.67 of 1993 Date of decision: February 04, 2009 Harchand Singh …..PETITIONER Versus Sarup Chand and others …..RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN PRESENT: None for the petitioner. None for respondent No.1. Mr G.P.Vashisth, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. T.P.S.MANN, J. (Oral): Suit for permanent injunction filed by the petitioner and others for restraining Sarup Chand and Kaur Sain from interfering in any manner or encroaching upon the portion of the public street was decreed by learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Ludhiana on 2.12.1981. The said judgment and decree was challenged by Sarup Chand-respondent by filing an appeal which was accepted by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana on 29.11.1984. Resultantly, the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court was reversed. The petitioner and others then filed RSA No.3296 of 1984 in this Court which came up for hearing on 16.1.1985. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants therein, an ad interim injunction was granted restraining Sarup Chand and Kaur Sain from raising any construction on the premises in dispute till further orders. According to the petitioner, inspite of the aforementioned orders of ad-interim injunction, respondent Nos.2 and 3, who claimed to have purchased the property in question from Sarup Chand-respondent started raising construction on the site in dispute on 2.8.1992. The petitioner protested against the construction being carried out by respondent COCP No.67 of 1993 -2- Nos. 2 and 3 but they did not desist from the same. Accordingly, the petitioner informed the police and it was only on the intervention of the police that respondent Nos.2 and 3 stopped the construction. However, again on 23.12.1992, the respondents started construction and blocked the passage. On these grounds, the petitioner prayed for taking up contempt proceedings against the respondents. Upon notice, respondent No.1-Sarup Chand filed his reply, wherein he stated that soon after the decision by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana on 29.11.1984 in his favour, he sold the property in question to Surjit Singh and Chhota Singh vide sale deed dated 3.12.1984 and handed over the possession thereof to them on that very day. As he himself did not carry out any construction, there was no question of his violating the aforementioned order of ad-interim injunction. In their reply Surjit Singh and Chhota Singh @ Malkiat Singh- respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submitted that they purchased the property in question from Sarup Chand-respondent but they had no knowledge about the issuance of ad-interim injunction, for the reason that they were not party in the aforementioned second appeal filed by the petitioner. Moreover, they only carried out repairs to the construction and did not undertake any fresh construction. As is clear from the above, only Sarup Chand-respondent was party to the civil litigation, which had been initiated by Harchand Chand- petitioner. After the decision by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, whereby appeal of Sarup Chand-respondent was allowed and judgment and decree by learned trial Court was set aside, he (Sarup Chand) was free to alienate the property. Accordingly, he sold the property in COCP No.67 of 1993 -3- dispute in favour of Surjit Singh and Chhota Singh on 3.12.1984. Aforementioned Surjit Singh and Chhota Singh, respondent Nos.2 and 3 were not party to the civil litigation as well as in the aforementioned second appeal, nor there is anything on the record that they were aware of the orders passed by this Court granting ad-interim injunction. Under these circumstances, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 could not be said to have intentionally and willfully violated the orders passed by this Court. Moreover, it is the case of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that they had not carried out any fresh construction and it were only repairs, which were carried out by them. In view of the above, there is no merit in the present petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed. Rule is discharged. February 04, 2009 (T.P.S.MANN) Pds. JUDGE