COCP No.1394 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.1394 of 2010 Date of Decision: 22.7.2010 Surinder Kumar .....Petitioner Versus Bhag Kaur ….Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Ashu Kaushik, Advocate, for the petitioner. Hemant Gupta, J. (Oral) The grievance of the petitioner is that after dismissal of his second appeal on 30.4.2010, the Court granted four months’ time to hand over vacant physical possession of the premises vide order dated 17.5.2010. But the respondent has forcibly dispossessed the petitioner on 19.5.2010. From the order dated 17.5.2010, Annexure P.1, it transpires that the time was granted to the petitioner in the absence of the respondent. There was a decree in favour of the respondent. It appears that possession has been taken by the respondent in execution of the decree granted in her favour. Thus, it is open to the petitioner to move an application before the Executing Court for COCP No.1394 of 2010 [2] restoration of possession on establishing the fact that the order dated 17.5.2010 was communicated to the decree-holder and/or to the Court and that the petitioner is otherwise entitled to the restoration of possession in law. However, no case is made out for initiating the contempt proceedings. Hence, the present petition is dismissed with liberty aforesaid. As and when the petitioner moves any application, it shall be decided on its merits without being influenced by any observations made in this order. HEMANT GUPTA ] JUDGE 22-07-2010 ds