COCP No.1876 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.1876 of 2008 Date of decision: 20.11.2009 Gurbachan Singh and others ......Petitioner(s) Versus Babu Singh ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Sandhawalia, Advocate for the respondent. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) The respondent filed civil suit No.563 T/93 of 18.11.1991 against the petitioners and others for declaration to the effect that he was owner in possession of the suit land and the entries in the revenue record were liable to be corrected and further for permanent injunction restraining defendants No.1 to 5 (including petitioners) from getting the suit land partitioned on the basis of wrong entries in the revenue record and from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff. The aforesaid civil suit was decreed by the trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 16.7.1996. The petitioners and others filed Civil Appeal No.216 T dated 12.8.1996 which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala vide his judgment and decree dated 22.9.2000. The aforesaid defendants (including the petitioners) filed Regular Second Appeal No.922 of 2001 in this Court. On 19.2.2007, this Court was pleased to pass the following order: “RSA No.922 of 2001 COCP No.1876 of 2008 2 Present: Sh. D.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellants. Sh. G.S. Sandhwalia, Advocate for the respondents. ...... Contends that not only the suit filed by the plaintiffs was barred by limitation but even otherwise suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by the principles of res judicata on account of the judgment Ex.D-5 and decree sheet Ex.D-6. The learned counsel maintains that the two Courts below have completely misread and misconstrued the evidence on record. The arguments of the learned counsel raise a substantial question of law. Admitted. Parties shall maintain status quo regarding possession till further orders. Sd/- Viney Mittal Judge February 19,2007.” The grievance of the petitioners before this Court is that they were in possession of Khasra No.183 min when the aforesaid order dated 19.2.2007 was passed by this Court and their possession continued even thereafter. However, on 17.10.2008 in utter disregard of the status quo order, the respondent dug out the foundations for the construction of his house in the aforesaid Khasra No.183 min and laid down foundation upto the plinth level. It is the further case of the petitioners that they also approached the local police, however, nothing was done. Hence, the present petition is being fixed for taking action against the respondent under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. COCP No.1876 of 2008 3 In response to the show cause notice issued by this Court, reply by way of affidavit of Babu Singh-respondent was filed wherein it was submitted that the petitioners were never in possession of land falling in Khasra No.183 min which was always in exclusive possession of the respondent along with his brother Mehar Singh and his sons. The family of Hardit Singh had entered into an agreement of partition on 11.6.1985 (Annexure R-1) whereby they had occupied specific portions of the land belonging to the family and were in possession of specific shares as depicted in the site plan (Annexure R-2). From the aforesaid documents, it is clear that in Khasra No.183, Harbinder Singh and Gurnam Singh have built up their houses and similarly the sons of the respondent have also built up in Khasra No.183. The said family partition is a matter of record though the petitioner is contesting the fact of its implementation in the revenue record. It has been further submitted in this reply that the petitioners are in possession of Khasra Nos.178 and 177 and in no way are in possession of any piece of land comprised in Khasra No.183. It is further submitted that once the respondent is in possession of specific portion as per the agreement of partition (Annexure R-1) which is exhibited as Mark DX in the civil suit, the petitioners cannot restrain him from constructing in the portion which is in his possession to the exclusion of the petitioners. It has been specifically asserted that the foundation laid down by the respondent was in the land which was in his possession and there is no violation of any specific order regarding possession. The petitioners are also in exclusive possession as per the partition agreement Annexure R-1 and the respondent is not interfering in their possession. The petition filed by the petitioners is only a pressure tactic and is liable to be dismissed. There is no representation on behalf of the petitioners. COCP No.1876 of 2008 4 I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent and has perused the record of this petition. Admittedly, the parties are co-sharers in the joint khata and civil litigation is pending between them. The specific stand taken by the respondent is that he is in exclusive possession of Khasra No.183 min and the petitioners are in possession of Khasra Nos.178 and 177 of the joint khata, whereas the petitioners are disputing the stand taken by the respondent and are claiming themselves to be in possession of Khasra No.183 min. Vide judgment dated 16.7.1996, the trial Court has decreed the suit of the respondent accepting his claim/stand wherein he has been found to be in possession of the suit land. On the other hand, the petitioners are claiming themselves to be in possession of the aforesaid land. In view of the aforesaid stand taken by the parties, it cannot be held that any contempt is made out of the order dated 19.2.2007 passed by this Court and therefore, this Court is not inclined to proceed further in this contempt petition. Rule discharged. However, the petitioners are at liberty to move an appropriate application in accordance with law for redressal of their grievances in RSA No.922 of 2001. November 20, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE