IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH COCP No. 2033 of 2011 (O&M) Bhagesh Kaushik and others .. Petitioners versus Manmohan Singh .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Prashant Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Rajesh Bindal, J. The present petition has been filed claiming that the respondent has violated the order dated 25.3.2009 passed by this court where the eviction of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was stayed by this court subject to payment of rent @ ` 3,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent -landlord having refused to receive the rent, they are depositing the same in the treasury. Despite this fact in the knowledge of the respondent, he has filed the application for issuance of warrants of possession. This amounts to contempt of this court. However, he did not dispute the fact that he has already appeared in the court below where the proceedings initiated by the respondent for issuance of warrants of possession are pending and have produced receipts of rent deposited by the petitioners within the time permitted by this court. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and considering the submissions made above, in my opinion, no case for issuance of notice to show cause as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against the respondent can possibly be made out at this stage as no warrants of possession has been issued against the petitioners. In case the petitioners are claiming that rent was deposited in time, they can put up their claim before the learned court below where the proceedings initiated by the respondent for issuance of warrants of possession are pending. The petition stands dismissed. 16.12.2011 ( Rajesh Bindal ) vs Judge