IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Civil Contempt Petition No. 70 of 2008 Vinod S/O Prakash, R/O Village Mohitpur, P.S.Bhagwanpur, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar. …… Applicant. Versus Rampal S/O Simru and five others. … O.P.-Respondents. Sri K.S.Verma, learned counsel for the applicant. Date May 09, 2008. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard K.S.Verma, learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record. The contempt petition has been filed for non- compliance of the order dated 20-7-2006 (Annexure No. 4) and 28- 5-2007 (Annexure No. 5). By the order dated 20-7-2006, this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No. 570 of 2006, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code), Vinod Vs. State of Uttaranchal and four others, passed an interim order to the effect that the operation of the order dated 9-6-2006 passed by the Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Revision No. 120 of 2006 Ram Kala Vs. Suleman shall not be given effect to. By order dated 28-5-2007, this Court in the said matter passed an order to the effect that in view of the interim order, passed by this Court on 20- 07-2006, it is directed that the order passed by the Magistrate on 20-03-2006 in Case No. 01 of 2006 between the parties may be complied with, without prejudice to the rights of the parties. Briefly stated, the facts are that on 20-3-2006, Sub Divisonal Magistrate Roorkee in a proceeding under Section 145 of 2 the Code has declared second party (lease holders) Suleman and others including the present applicant were in possession of Khasara Nos. 402, 407 and 411 of village Mohitpur and the order passed by him under Section 146(1) of the Code was set aside. It was directed that the possession be handed over to the petitioner and other allottees from the receiver-revenue inspector. Aggrieved by the order dated 20-3-2006, a revision was preferred by the opposite party nos.1 to 4 before the Sessions Judge Haridwar, which was registered as Criminal Revision No. 120 of 2006. The revision was ultimately allowed vide order dated 1-6-2006 and the order passed by the S.D.M. Roorkee dated 20-3- 2006 was set aside. The applicant Vinod, being aggrieved by the order passed in revision, came up before this Court and filed an application under Section 482 of the Code bearing Criminal Misc. Application No. 570 of 2006, Vinod Vs. State of Uttaranchal and four others. This Court by order dated 20-7-2006 stayed the operation of the impugned order passed by the Sessions Judge as mentioned earlier. Subsequently, O.P. Nos. 1 to 4 filed counter affidavit as well as stay vacation application. This Court after hearing the parties, again passed an interim order and directed that the order passed by the Magistrate dated 20-3-2006 in Case No. 1 of 2006 may be complied with without prejudice to the rights of parties, as stated earlier. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is in possession of the disputed land and the possession was handed over to the applicant and other allottees, but grievance of the applicant is that the opposite party-respondent nos. 1 to 4 are interfering with the peaceful possession of the applicant, hence it is a contempt. 3 The Contempt Court can only examine whether the order of the Court had been complied with or not. As per own statement of the learned counsel for the applicant, pursuant to the order passed by the S.D.M., the applicant and other allottees were put in possession and, in my view, the order passed by this Court had been complied with. So far as the grievance that the opposite parties nos. 1 to 4 are interfering in the possession of the applicant without any authority, the applicant may file Civil Suit for a decree of injunction before the competent court. The contempt petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. Contempt Petition is dismissed. ( B.S.Verma, J. ) RCP 4 5