IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.656 of 2009 Date of decision : June 2, 2010 Amar Singh …Petitioner. Versus Man Singh …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner : Mr. R.K. Gautam, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Mehar Chand, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) The present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed for quashing the order dated 16th October, 2009 of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.2, Ghumarwin, whereby prayer of the petitioner for restoration of his possession over a portion of the suit land, from which he has allegedly been dispossessed, after the passing of the temporary injunction, has been rejected, on the grounds that remedy available to the petitioner is to seek punishment of the respondent- defendant, under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure and also that revision against the order of injunction is pending in the High Court. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 3. Petitioner has filed a suit for issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendant- respondent from interfering in his land, which is described by specific Khasra numbers in the plaint. He also moved an application, under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned trial Court vide order dated 28th February, 2008, restrained the respondent-defendant “from interfering, by way of dispossession of the petitioner, raising construction or digging any part of the suit land, till the disposal of the suit”. Appeal was filed against that order by the respondent- defendant, which the Additional District Judge dismissed on 15th September, 2009. No revision against the order of Additional District Judge was filed in this Court and this fact is admitted even by the learned counsel for the respondent. 4. Petitioner then filed an application, alleging that he had been dispossessed from a portion of the suit land, after the passing of the aforesaid temporary order. So, prayer was made that the portion of the suit land be got restored, from which the petitioner had been dispossessed, after the passing of the aforesaid order. That application has been dismissed with the aforesaid reasoning. 5. Admittedly, no revision is pending against the order of the Additional District Judge, affirming the temporary injunction order of the trial Court. The view taken by the trial Court that the only remedy available to the petitioner is to seek punishment of the defendant-respondent, under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, is not correct. …3… Defendant-respondent may seek punishment of the respondent, by making application, under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil procedure, but that would not help him in regaining the alleged lost possession from a portion of the suit land. 6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Delhi Development Authority versus Skipper Construction Co.(P) Ltd. and another, (1996) 4 SCC 622 has held that principle that a contemnor ought not to be permitted to enjoy and/or to keep the fruits of his contempt is well settled. Therefore, the present petition is allowed, impugned order of the trial Court is set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial Court, with a direction to decide the application afresh, after affording opportunity to both the parties to produce evidence, on the point whether after the passing of the injunction order, petitioner has, in fact, been dispossessed by the defendant-respondent from any portion of the suit land and if so from which specific portion. 7. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 14th June, 2010. Petition stands disposed of. June 2, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J