IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.O.C.P. No. 1070 of 2007 Date of Decision : May 11, 2009 Kuldip Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus Ram Gopal Chadha and others ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Mohan Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Baldev Kapoor, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Mr. C.M. Munjal, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Mr. M.C. Berry, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondents No. 3 and 4. T.P.S. MANN, J. A civil suit was filed by Ram Gopal Chadha-respondent No.1 against the petitioners and one Sukhchain Chadha wherein he sought permanent injunction that the defendants or anybody else acting on their behalf or their attorney be restrained from taking forcible possession or interfering in his peaceful possession over the suit property. Alongwith the suit, he also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. for the grant of ad interim injunction. C.O.C.P. No. 1070 of 2007 -2- After hearing the parties, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Phagwara vide order dated August 23, 2002 disposed of the application by directing the parties to maintain status quo with regard to possession and further alienation and construction over the suit property during the pendency of the suit. Aggrieved of the same, Sukhchain Chadha-defendant filed an appeal and a separate appeal was filed by the petitioners under Order XLIII Rule 1 C.P.C. Both the appeals were accepted by Additional District Judge-II, Kapurthala vide order dated August 06, 2003. Resultantly, the application filed by respondent No.1 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. was dismissed, being without any merit. The plaintiff then filed two revision petitions which came to be decided by the High Court on September 09, 2004 by directing that the parties would remain in possession of their respective areas till the decision of the suit and in case any of the parties raised construction over the areas in their possession, the same would be subject to the decision of the suit. The parties were also restrained from alienating the suit property. According to the petitioners, on the intervening night of 8/9.6.2007, respondent No.2 reached at the land in dispute when he was accompanied by some other persons. He demolished the wall constructed by the petitioners. He further constructed a wall in front of the gate. Pleading that respondent No.2 in connivance with the plaintiff and other respondents dispossessed the petitioners from the land in dispute despite the order passed by the High Court, which was intentional and wilful C.O.C.P. No. 1070 of 2007 -3- violation by them, the petitioners prayed for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents. Upon notice, the respondents filed their separate replies. In his reply, respondent No.1 stated that Sukhchain Chadha, from whom the petitioners allegedly purchased 10 marlas of land vide sale deed dated 8.5.2002, was not competent to deliver physical possession beyond his share. Said Sukhchain Chadha had strained relations with him and had made false averments in his written statement in order to support the petitioners. He denied the allegations levelled against him as he was unable to move from the bed, being 83 years of age and suffering from paralysis, and, therefore, incapable of participating in the alleged incident. It was asserted by him that he had not raised any construction on the property which was in his exclusive possession, although the co- sharers have been permitted by the High Court to raise construction on the land in their respective shares. Respondent No.2 pleaded that he was not a party to the civil suit in which application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. had been filed. None of the orders had been passed in his presence. Moreover, the civil suit has already been withdrawn by plaintiff- respondent No.1 and, accordingly, the application for temporary injunction went with the suit. He denied the incident which according to the petitioners had taken placed on the intervening night of 8/9.6.2007. According to him, his wife Sudha Seth was the owner in possession of C.O.C.P. No. 1070 of 2007 -4- the suit property alongwith her sisters and all the sisters alongwith him visited Phagwara and went to see their property where they were closing the gate and raising wall in demarcated portion of their own property in terms of the order passed by the Delhi High Court on 27.10.2005. At that time, certain anti-social elements tried to enter the property by show of force and broke open the lock. His wife reported the matter to the local police. When the police arrived at the spot, orders passed by the Delhi High Court were shown, wherein daughters of Ram Raksh Pal were mentioned to be owners in possession of the disputed property. Accordingly, DDR No.37 dated 9.6.2007 (Annexure R/2/A) was recorded in Police Station, City Phagwara. Though respondents No.3 and 4 also filed their replies, yet those are not required to be referred to for the reason that learned counsel for the petitioners made a statement at the time of hearing the arguments withdrawing the allegations against those respondents. In their replication filed to the reply of respondent No.1, the petitioners admitted the fact of withdrawal of the suit by respondent No.1 but pleaded that after completion of the pleadings and examination of the witnesses when the suit was fixed for arguments, respondent No.1 realised that he had failed to establish even a prima facie case and, thus, had no other option but to withdraw the suit and also to cover up the contemptuous act. Similar replication was also filed by the petitioners to the reply of respondent No.2. Perusal of the petition would reveal that as regards the C.O.C.P. No. 1070 of 2007 -5- alleged incident on the night intervening 8/9.6.2007, no specific allegation was leveled against respondent No.1. The only allegation levelled against him was that respondent No.2 in connivance with him and the local police had dispossessed the petitioners from the land in dispute, inspite of the order passed by the High Court. Respondent No.1 has taken up the stand that he was 83 years of age and was bed ridden because of paralysis. His right hand and right leg had been completely affected by the paralysis. Even he had lost his speech. The petitioners had not denied in their replication regarding the old age of respondent No.1 but have simply re-asserted that that was no ground respondent No.1 to violate the orders passed by the High Court. However, no material has been brought by the petitioners as to how respondent No.1 connived with respondent No.2 and the local police to dispossess the petitioners from the land in dispute. In view of the above, the Court does not find that respondent No.1 either wilfully or deliberately violated the order passed by the High Court on 9.9.2004. As regards respondent No.2, the facts remains that he was neither a party to the litigation between plaintiff- respondent No.1 on the one hand and the petitioners and Sukhchain Chadha on the other nor the orders in the civil suit instituted by the plaintiff passed in his presence. Though he is son-in-law of Ram Raksh Pal, brother of Ram Gopal Chadha-plaintiff yet that by itself, is no ground to infer that he would have any interest in the property in question. On the other hand, he has C.O.C.P. No. 1070 of 2007 -6- come out with a version that he alongwith his wife, namely, Sudha Seth alongwith her sisters, who were owners in possession of the property, visited Phagwara and went to see their property. When they were closing the gate and raising the wall in the demarcated portion on their own property in terms of the order dated 27.10.2005 passed by the Delhi High Court, some anti-social elements tried to enter that property by show of force broke open the lock. The matter was reported to the local police by Sudha Seth. After the arrival of the police, the orders passed by the Delhi High Court, wherein the daughters of Ram Raksh Pal were mentioned as owners in possession, were shown. Accordingly, the police recorded DDR No. 37 dated 9.6.2007 at Police Station, City Phagwara at 12.30 A.M. It is also not in dispute that the suit filed by Ram Gopal Chadha has since been withdrawn by him on 21.7.2007. Under these circumstances, it would be inappropriate and unjustified to proceed with the contempt proceedings which had arisen on account of the violation of the order passed by the High Court on 9.9.2004, as claimed by the petitioners. Resultantly, the contempt proceedings are dropped. ( T.P.S. MANN ) May 11, 2009 JUDGE satish C.O.C.P. No. 1070 of 2007 -7- Whether to be referred to the Reporters : YES / NO