IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.O.C.P. No.357 of 2008 Date of Decision:- 10.03.2008 Baldev Singh s/o Lal Singh (since deceased) ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.G.C.Rattan, Advocate vs. SI Kuldeep Singh & others ....Respondent(s) *** 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 contempt petition has been filed alleging wilful and deliberate disobedience of the judgment dated 11.4.1997 passed by the Civil Court, Samrala as well as the order dated 11.9.1997 passed by this Court in C.W.P.No.13551 of 1997. From the material on record, it appears that the father of the petitioner (Lal Singh) filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against two private persons, namely, Sher Singh and Mohinder Singh, who were impleaded as defendants. The aforesaid suit was decreed by the Civil Court at Samrala vide judgment dated 11.4.1997 thereby restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land “forcibly and illegally.” The father of the petitioner thereafter appears to have filed C.W.P.No.13551 of 1997 along with some other villagers claiming that the C.O.C.P. No.357 of 2008 -2- disputed land was owned by the proprietors of the village and not by the Gram Panchayat. This Court, vide an interim order has stayed dispossession of the father of the petitioner. In this contempt petition, it is not the case of the petitioner that the Gram Panchayat or other Authorities concerned have attempted to dispossess him from the disputed land despite protection granted by this Court. If one reads the contempt petition minutely, it is apparent that after the death of his father, the petitioner had a property dispute with the wife of his deceased brother. It is in order to grab the share of Smt.Simbal Kaur- wife of the petitioner's deceased brother that he has filed the present contempt petition against her and two police officials alleging that they are attempting to dispossess him from the suit land. The so-called cause of action disclosed by the petitioner, thus, has nothing to do with the interim protection granted to his father by this Court or the restraint order passed against the defendants in the civil suit. No case, therefore, to initiate the contempt proceedings is made out. Dismissed. March 10, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE