IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.O.C.P. No. 536 of 2009 Date of Decision : March 20, 2009 Daljeet Singh ....Petitioner Versus Balbir Kaur and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Ms. Deepinder Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. T.P.S. MANN, J. The petitioner has prayed for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents for having violated the directions/undertaking as contained in the order dated 8.2.2006 passed by this Court in R.S.A. No. 461 of 1981. A perusal of order dated 8.2.2006 would reveal that the parties had agreed that 21 Bighas 16 Biswas of land in specific khasra numbers, as sold by respondent No. 1 therein in favour of respondent No. 2 therein, be treated as a sale of shares in the joint Khewat and that the latter shall get possession of the land falling to her share in the joint Khewat by way of partition. Counsel representing respondent No. 2 therein stated that his clientess would move an application for partition within six weeks from that day. In turn, counsel for the appellant in the appeal had stated that in that event the appellant would not obstruct the partition proceedings and rather help in expeditious disposal of the same. C.O.C.P. No. 536 of 2009 -2- As is clear from the order dated December 15, 2008 passed by this Court in C.O.C.P. No. 1210 of 2008, Sanad partition had already been prepared and, therefore, nothing survived in the said contempt petition. The plea of the petitioner that respondents No. 1 to 4 have filed an appeal against the order dated 11.11.2008 passed by Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Patiala whereby partition had been effected in terms of the directions/undertaking as contained in the order dated 8.2.2006 passed by this Court in R.S.A. No. 461 of 1981 and which appeal has been entertained by respondent No. 5 is no ground to hold that the respondents have exposed themselves of being proceeded against under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. Resultantly, there is no merit in the petition, which is, therefore, dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) March 20, 2009 JUDGE satish