IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 02.12.2010 COCP No.2219 of 2010 (O&M) Lal Chand ...Petitioner Versus Sameer Mathur and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Ms. Savita Tanwar, Advocate, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) The present contempt petition arises out of a suit for permanent injunction in which the petitioner was defendant No.3. The suit for permanent injunction filed by one Pawan Kumar was accompanied with an application for grant of ad interim injunction, which was dismissed on 14.06.2010, wherein a finding was recorded that the defendants/petitioner have a right to alienate/transfer their plots as per law and have a right to raise construction over their plots. After the said order was passed, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for directing the police authorities to take appropriate action on the complaints given by the petitioner. The said petition was disposed of by this Court on 20.09.2010, wherein direction was issued to the Superintendent of Police to decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that once injunction application has been dismissed and a finding has been returned COCP No.2219 of 2010 (O&M) that the petitioner has a right to raise construction, the police authorities are bound to provide police help to the petitioner to carry out the construction activities. The action of the police authorities in not taking action is violation of the direction of this Court. I do not find any ground to initiate the contempt proceedings. The parties are before the Civil Court, wherein ad interim injunction claimed by the plaintiff has been declined. After declining of ad interim injunction, the petitioner, who is defendant in the suit, is not entitled to raise construction on the strength of the said order alone. The representation submitted by the petitioner to the police authorities to enable him to raise construction is untenable. In a civil society, the police authorities are to aid and assist in the implementation of the orders of the Civil Court. The application for ad interim injunction has been dismissed that does not give right in favour of the petitioner to raise construction. The civil dispute cannot be settled through the mechanism of police. Consequently, the present contempt petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to the petitioner in accordance with law. 02.12.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 2