COCP No.88 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.88 of 2008 Date of Decision:16.07.2009 Ami Chand ....petitioner Versus Joginder Singh .....respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr.Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Varun Gupta, Advocate for the respondent **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. As per the averments made in this petition, while deciding Civil Revision No.3127 of 2007 this Court vide order dated 06.07.2007 allowed the respondent one opportunity to produce his entire evidence subject to payment of Rs.5000/-as costs on or before the said date. It is further the case of the petitioner that in fact the respondent had already deposited a sum of Rs.2000/-with the Tribunal as directed by this Court vide order dated 01.06.2007 and thus he was liable to pay a total sum of Rs.7000/- as costs i.e.Rs.2000/- as directed by this court on 01.06.2007 and Rs.5000/- as directed by this Court on 06.07.2007. However, the respondent deposited only a total sum of Rs. 5000/- i.e.Rs.2000/- in pursuance of the directions of this Court dated 01.06.2007 and Rs.3000/- as per the directions of this Court dated 06.07.2007. Thus, according to the petitioner, the respondent has committed a contempt of this Court by not complying with the aforesaid COCP No.88 of 2008 2 directions dated 06.07.2007 passed by this Court in Civil Revision No.3127 of 2007 . I have perused the record of this contempt petition. It may also be noticed that respondent was allowed one opportunity to lead evidence on payment of costs and if according to the petitioner the costs were not paid as per the orders of this Court passed in Civil Revision No.3127 of 2007, he could have raised the objection before the trial Court at the time when respondent was granted one opportunity. It is not in dispute that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra, after hearing the parties, vide its order dated 18.09.2007 held that Joginder Singh, respondent, was required to pay only a sum of Rs.5000/- in pursuance of the directions given by this Court vide order dated 01.06.2007 and 06.07.2007 passed in the aforesaid civil revision. Aforesaid order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra, has not been challenged by the petitioner in any of the proceedings. Thus, in view of the aforesaid fact that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra has already observed on the basis of the orders passed by this Court that the respondent was required to pay only a sum of Rs.5000/- as costs, the aforesaid order has become final. I am not inclined to proceed further in this contempt petition. Rule discharged. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 16.07.2009 neenu