COCP No.695 of 2009(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.695 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 13.7.2009 Surinder Singh ......Petitioner Versus M.P. Arora `` .......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Gagandeep Singh Sirphikhi, Advocate for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. CM No.15708-CII of 2009 CM is allowed. Documents are taken on record. COCP No.695 of 2009 As per the averments made in this petition, the petitioner filed CWP No.14691 of 2007 in this Court directing Improvement Trust, Batala to remove the unauthorized encroachment. The respondent-Trust in its written statement admitted the encroachment done by the allottee of Shop No.16, while submitting that the allottee of the said shop had filed a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Batala and the Civil Court vide order dated 22.1.2008 had restrained the Trust from demolishing any part of the shop. Thereafter, this Court on 4.2.2009 vide Annexure P-2 directed the Additional Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Batala to decide the ad interim application, if any, moved by the allottee/owner before 30.4.2009. The Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Batala vide its order dated 18.2.2009, dismissed the ad interim application filed by the allottee of shop No.16 and vacated the stay order COCP No.695 of 2009(O&M) 2 dated 22.1.2008. It is the further case of the petitioner that vide judgment dated 4.10.2008 passed in CWP No.4886 of 2003, this Court had given the liberty to any of the public spirited person to file a contempt petition if any encroachment is not being removed by the Municipal Authorities. The petitioner made a representation dated 2.3.2009 to the respondent to remove the encroachment put up by the owner of shop No.16. However, the respondent has failed to carry out the removal of encroachment and thus, is guilty of the contempt of this Court . I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the allottee of shop No.16 has filed an appeal against the order dated 18.2.2009 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Batala whereby the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC filed by her was dismissed and the Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur vide order dated 6.6.2009 has directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to possession over the suit property with a further direction to the respondent not to demolish or dismantle any part and portion of the suit property till 30.7.2009. In view of the aforesaid restraint order against the respondent passed by the Court of competent jurisdiction, it cannot be said that the respondent is guilty of non-compliance of the directions issued by this Court in CWP No.14691 of 2007 and CWP No.4886 of 2003. Therefore, I am not inclined to proceed further in the present contempt petition. Rule discharged. July 13, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE