COCP No.382 of 2007 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.382 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: September 17, 2009. Ravinder Monga ...Petitioner(s) v. Parshotam Chowdhary & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Shri PPS Duggal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Shubhjot Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.1. ORDER Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral): As per the averments made in this petition, the petitioner along with three others filed a suit for the grant of a decree for permanent injunction restraining respondent No.1 from converting a public passage measuring 25 feet in width and about 107 feet in length, as per the site plan attached with the aforesaid suit, situated outside Delhi Gate, Ferozepur City by way of illegal construction. According to the petitioner, a compromise was effected between the parties vide Compromise Deed Annexure P-1 according to which the defendant agreed not to interfere in the passage in dispute and further conceded that he will not raise any sort of construction over the passage in question. It is also the case of the petitioner that respondent No.1 COCP No.382 of 2007 -: 2 :- duly acknowledged the aforesaid compromise deed in the court by making a statement and in terms of the aforesaid compromise, the civil suit was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ferozepur vide his judgment dated 4.1.2006 and the parties were bound by the terms of the compromise deed Ex.CX. The grievance of the petitioner before this Court is that on the intervening night of 9th and 10th February, 2007, respondent No.1 in connivance with the other respondents blocked the public passage by illegal construction and, thus, committed contempt of this Court. In response to the show cause notice issued by this Court, written statement on behalf of respondent No.1 was filed wherein it was submitted that he had not raised any construction as alleged in the contempt petition. The respondent has also placed on record certain photographs of the property in dispute, attached as Annexure R-1/1, according to which there was free and clear access to the property of the petitioner and there was no construction on the passage in dispute. The contents of the written statement filed by respondent No.1 have not been controverted by the petitioner as no rejoinder has been filed by him. Even on perusal of the photographs, it is clear that the passage in front of the property of the petitioner is clear and there is no construction. Thus, I find no merit in this petition. Dismissed. Rule discharged. September 17, 2009. [ Rakesh Kumar Garg ] kadyan Judge