IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.3565 of 2005 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 10.03.2008 Sukhmander Singh etc. ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.G.S.Sandhu, Advocate vs. Prem Singh etc. ....Respondent(s) through Mr.S.K.Arora, Advocate. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 28.5.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridkot, whereby on an application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC read with Section 228 IPC moved by the respondent-decree holder, the learned Executing Court has held that the petitioners have fraudulently violated the judgment and decree dated 12.3.1992 passed by the then Sub Judge, Ist Class, Faridkot, however, instead of detaining them in civil prison, their salaries, offices and vehicles have been ordered to be attached. Aggrieved, the petitioners-judgment debtors preferred this revision petition in which on 15.7.2005 they took up the stand that D.D.R.No.226 dated 8.1.1998 (Exh.A-9) was inadvertently got recorded by Sukhmander Singh, Patwari and except that there has been “no breach of injunction decree dated 12.3.1992”. It was further undertaken by them that C.R. No.3565 of 2005 (O&M) -2- they “are not in any manner interfering with the land of the respondent- decree-holder and that they would abide by the decree dated 12.3.1992 (Annexure P-1). Having regard to the above-stated stand taken by the petitioners, operation of the impugned order dated 28.5.2005 passed by the Executing Court was stayed. In response to the notice of motion, learned counsel for the respondent-decree holder has also been heard. He argues that even though, presently the respondent-decree holder is in possession of the subject land, however, at one point of time the petitioners had taken forcible possession thereof. In the light of the stand taken by the petitioners before this Court and the undertaking given on their behalf that they shall not interfere with the land of the respondent-decree holder and shall abide by the decree dated 12.3.1992 and keeping in view the fact that at present the respondent- decree holder is in possession of the suit land, this revision petition is partly allowed to the extent that the impugned order whereby the salaries/vehicles of the petitioners have been attached is set aside, however, subject to the condition that the petitioners shall abide by the undertaking given by them before this Court and shall not interfere with the possession of the respondent-decree holder over the subject land in any manner in obedience to the decree dated 12.3.1992 (Annexure P-1). It is made clear that in the event of any violation by the petitioners of the undertaking given before this Court, the respondent shall be entitled to initiate Contempt of Court proceedings against them. March 10, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE