IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.1968 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.12.2009 Rattan Singh ......Petitioner(s) Versus Bant Singh and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Hari Om Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.S. Kamboj, Advocate for the respondents. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. CM No.24489-CII of 2008 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. COCP No.1968 of 2008 As per the averments made in this petition, the petitioner filed a suit for declaration and injunction qua the suit land which was earlier in possession of one Bachan Singh and subsequently, the same was allotted to the respondent. However, the said civil suit was dismissed and the respondents were held to be owners in possession in their own right. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. However, vide order dated 15.7.2002 passed in RSA No.4790 of 2001, this Court admitted the appeal and directed that the suit property shall not be alienated in any manner whatsoever till further orders. Keeping in view the dispute between the parties and the fact that respondents No.1 and 2 were in possession of the property, this Court vide order dated 15.7.2002 directed the respondents to deposit mesne profits during the pendency of the appeal before this Court. It was further directed that an application be filed before the trial Court which shall determine the amount of mesne profits and the amount so determined shall be deposited by the respondents pro rata after every six months from the commencement of the agricultural year and this method shall continue to be adhered to by the respondents during the pendency of the appeal. It is the further case of the petitioner that in compliance of the aforesaid order, the trial Court assessed the mesne profits vide order dated 24.5.2008. The grievance of the petitioner in this contempt petition is that the respondents have not deposited the mesne profits in compliance of the order dated 15.7.2002 and thus, they are liable to be punished for committing contempt of the Court. In response to the show cause notice issued by this Court, separate replies have been filed on behalf of both the respondents. The only defence taken by respondent No.1 before this Court is that the land in dispute is lying vacant and since there was no produce or crop or income from the land in dispute, respondent No.1 could not deposit these mesne profits. The aforesaid respondent has further submitted that he has no other source of income except a meager pension which he was receiving after retirement as Class-IV employee from U.T. Chandigarh. It was further submitted that there was no wilful and intentional disobedience on the part of respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 in his reply, has submitted that although there was no income from the aforesaid land in dispute yet he has deposited a sum of Rs.31,570/- and Rs.20,000/- before this Court as mesne profits and therefore, he has complied with the directions passed by this Court. Keeping in view the facts that respondent No.2 has already complied with the orders passed by this Court and has deposited his share of mesne profits and that respondent No.1 is not in a position to deposit the amount of mesne profits, it cannot be said that there was any intention of the respondents not to comply with the order passed by this Court and therefore, I am not inclined to proceed further in this petition. Rule discharged. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to seek his remedy by filing an appropriate application in RSA No.4790 of 2001. December 10, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE