IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.1086 of 2009 Date of decision: 7.12.2009 Raghubir Singh ......Petitioner(s) Versus Vinod Kumar Jagga and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Ashwani Kumar Bura, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Ravi Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.3. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) Respondent No.1 is present in Court. Report of Sh. Vinod Kumar Jagga-respondent No.1 is taken on record. By filing the present petition, contempt jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked in view of the order dated 3.2.2009 passed by this Court, whereby, dismantling of the watercourse was stayed. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that watercourse in question marked by letters “DEF' was in existence since consolidation but now respondent No.3 has dismantled the said portion of the water channel. Respondents have filed reply. Respondent No.3 has pleaded that watercourse was not dismantled after 3.2.2009 rather it was dismantled prior thereto. To substantiate the contention, he has relied upon Annexure R-3/3, that is, an application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civiil Procedure for amendment of the plaint in which it has been clearly stated that the watercourse was dismantled by respondent No.3. However, no date is mentioned on the said application. Petitioner also filed a civil suit with regard to the present COCP No.1086 of 2009 -2- controversy but the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 28.3.2009 (Annexure R-3/2). To resolve the aforesaid controversy, this Court vide its order dated 20.11.2009 directed respondent No.1 to visit the spot and submit his report before this Court. Respondent No.1, who is also present in Court, has submitted his report dated 7.12.2009 which reads as under: “From the above, it is not clear as to on which date/month, the watercourse was dismantled but it is clear from the application filed by the petitioner in the learned Civil Court at Hansi and also from application filed in the office of SDO, Cad Sub Division, Jind that the dismantling of watercourse has bee done prior to March, 2009 or in the month of March, 2009.” In view of the aforesaid report, I find no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. Rule discharged. December 7, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE