IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.O.C.P. No. 958 of 1997 Date of Decision: July 20, 2011 Shanti Devi ….Petitioner Versus Dinesh Kumar and another. … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents. Alok Singh, J. (Oral) I have gone through the record. In the present Contempt Petition, the petitioner alleged that RSA No. 2365 of 1992 is pending in this Court and this Court had passed the following orders in C.M. No. 1274 and 1275-C of 1996:- “Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to file reply, to the Civil Misc. May do so before the next date with advance copy to counsel opposite. Adjourned to 30.4.1996, for arguments. Meanwhile, appellant is restrained to effect further alienation of the property in dispute. COCP No.958 of 1997 8.4.96 Sd/- G.C. Garg, Judge” “Called twice learned counsel for the appellant has not put in appearance. Reply to Civil Misc. has also not been filed. In the aforesaid situation, Civil Misc. 1274-C of 1996 is allowed as prayed. After hearing counsel for the respondent interim order dated 8.4.96 is made absolute. Civil Misc 1275-C of 96 stands disposed of accordingly. 30.4.96 Sd/- G.C. Garg, Judge” The allegation of the petitioner is that despite the orders dated 08.04.1996 and 30.04.1996, appellants- respondents have sold the property in dispute vide General Power of Attorney dated 08.05.1997. Respondent No.1 has stated in his reply that interim orders were never served to them, therefore, respondents were not aware about any interim order, thus, there is no question of violation of order. No material is placed on the record to prove that interim orders were ever served on the respondents before the execution of the sale by General Power of Attorney. Until and unless, order of stay is communicated to the respondent, respondent cannot be held guilty for non-compliance of the order. Dismissed. July 20, 2011 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 2