CACP No. 15 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CACP No. 15 of 2008 Date of decision: 19.12.2008 Arun Aggarwal and others ...Appellants Versus Sh. Krishan Mohan and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. GAREWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Chetan Mittal Senior Advocate with Mr. Shekhar Verma, Advocate, for the appellants. K.S.GAREWAL, J. Arun Aggarwal and five others have filed this appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 to challenge the orders of Hon'ble Single Judge dated October 4/21, 2008, dismissing their application for impleadment, correction of record and finally dropping contempt proceedings altogether against the respondents. The contempt petition had arisen out of CWP 10295 of 2006 entitled Madan Gopal Goyal and others versus Union Territory, Chandigarh and others decided on April 25, 2007 by a Division Bench. The petitioners plea that their exclusion from the voters list of the Pink Rose Cooperative House Building First Society was illegal, but had been accepted by the CACP No. 15 of 2008 2 Division Bench. An attempt was made by some applicant, who had not been party to the petition to seek modification/clarification of the judgment of the court but the petition was dismissed on May 14, 2007. Thereafter, on February 26, 2008, the writ petitioners had filed COCP 1048 of 2007 and contempt notice was issued. In the meanwhile, election to the Managing Committee of the Society held on June 11, 2007 was stayed. Hon'ble Single Judge had come to the conclusion that the elections were in accordance with the decision of the Division Bench. Consequently, when the matter came up before the Hon'ble Single Judge, the petitioners sought impleadment as parties but this request was declined. The petitioners are seeking impleadment in contempt proceedings in which they were not parties. The petitioners were also not parties in the original writ petition. Therefore, the Hon'ble Single Judge has rightly found that they were neither necessary nor proper parties and there was no requirement to implead them as such. Reliance has been placed on Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. And others Versus Chunilal Nanda and others (2006) 5 Supreme Court Cases 399, wherein the court held “If the High Court decides an issue or makes any direction, relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties, in a contempt proceedings, the aggrieved person is not without remedy. Such an order is open to challenge in an intra-court appeal (if the order was of a Single Judge and there was a provision for an intra-court appeal), or by seeking special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution (in other cases). We do not think that the judgment of the Supreme Court helps the petitioners in any way. If the petitioners have a right they are entitled to CACP No. 15 of 2008 3 seek remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and may assert that the judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge shall not be taken as an expression of opinion against them as the petitioners were not party in the main writ petition. (K.S. GAREWAL) JUDGE 19.12.2008 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) prem JUDGE Note:- Whether refer to reporter No