COCP No.1649 of 2001 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.1649 of 2001 Date of decision : 31.5.2011 Umrao Singh … Petitioner Versus Mohinder Singh and others … Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present : Mr. H.N.S. Gill, Advocate, for the petioner. Mr. H.S. Dhandi, Advocate, for respondent No.1. *** JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. This contempt petition under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, filed by Umrao Singh husband of Pritam Kaur, deceased appellant on the ground that this Court while issuing notice of motion in the regular second appeal No.540 of 1985 had directed the parties to maintain status quo till further orders, vide order dated 19.3.1985. The respondent no.1 with mala fide intention has raised construction in violation of order of this Court, which has caused stagnation of water in the fields of the petitioner. This court, vide order dated 3.12.2001, issued show cause notice to the respondents as to why proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act be not initiated against them. COCP No.1649 of 2001 -2- The names of respondents no.2 to 15 were scored off from the array of the respondents. Mohinder Singh, respondent no.1, contested this petition on the ground that he has constructed a cattle shed over the property owned and possessed by him, which he purchased vide registered sale deed dated 12.2.1972. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the construction which has been raised by the respondent no.1, is obstructing the flow of water from the fields of the petitioner making it impossible to cultivate the land. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submits that the plaintiff-petitioner cannot go beyond the prayer made in the main suit. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record with their able assistance. Regular second appeal No.540 of 1985, has been allowed and resultantly the judgment and decree of the trial court decreeing the suit of the plaintiff petitioner stands restored. The prayer in the main suit is as under: “Suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants not to block the free flow of rainy water passing through the choe by raising any Bunch or constructing a wall at points A to B, i.e. about 20 feet in width as shown in the site plan attached with the plaint, situated in village Bharatpur, Hadbast No.43, Tehsil Kharar, District Rup Nagar, and for mandatory injunction for removal of obstruction made, if any, at points A to B, under Order 7 rule 1 CPC.” COCP No.1649 of 2001 -3- While disposing of an application under Order XXXIX rules 1 and 2 CPC in its order dated 15.4.1981, Sub Judge I class, Kharar observed as under: “The defendants in paras 9 and 10 of the application dated 12.3.1981 have, inter alia, undertaken that they would remove construction made by them in the bara aforesaid at their own expenses and risk in case the plaintiffs ultimately succeeds in establishing his rights for passing water through points A to B. In this view of the matter, the application filed by the plaintiff/applicant under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 CPC fails, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.” The above said undertaking is still binding on the parties to the suit. If either of the parties violates the judgment and decree of the trial court, restored in Regular Second appeal No.540 of 1985, vide judgment of even date, the plaintiffs have every right to approach the Executing Court to get the same implemented. Therefore, without going into the merits of the allegations, this petition is dismissed with liberty to the plaintiff-petitioner to approach the Executing Court under Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, who shall proceed according to law. 31.5.2011 ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter : Yes / No.