IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.O.C.P. No. 155 of 2001 Date of Decision: July 25, 2011 Gurbachan Singh ….Petitioner Versus Darshan Singh Sandhu … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. C.M. Munjal, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondent. Alok Singh, J. I have gone through the record. The brief facts of the present case are that father of the petitioner – Kishore Singh gave the land measuring 100 Kanal 9 Marla to the petitioner vide consent decree dated 05.03.1994. The allegation of the petitioner is that the petitioner requested respondent no.1 to sanction the COCP No. 155 of 2001 mutation in his favour on the basis of the Civil Court decree but the Revenue Officer vide order dated 09.11.1999 sanctioned the mutation in favour of grand-daughter of the petitioner (i.e. Daughter’s daughter) on the basis of registered Will while ignoring the decree of Civil Court. In reply, respondent no.1 has submitted that he decided the case of mutation on the basis of evidence produced before him. He has further submitted in his reply that the petitioner despite service remained absent on various hearings and on 12.08.1997, an ex-parte order against the petitioner was passed which was later on recalled on 15.01.1998. Again on 12.03.1998, the petitioner remained absent and he was proceeded ex-parte which was again recalled vide order dated 01.01.1999 and ultimately the respondent heard the parties on 09.11.1999 and on the basis of the arguments decided the case. Respondent No.2 in his reply, has submitted that against the order of respondent No.1, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Collector, Faridkot, which is still pending and the petitioner instead of contesting the appeal before the Appellate Authority, has filed the present contempt petition with the concealment of this material fact. He has further submitted that the petitioner has already availed of his statutory right of appeal against the order passed by respondent No.2. 2 COCP No. 155 of 2001 Petitioner has not rebutted the averments made by the respondents in their reply. Moreover, the petitioner has already filed an appeal against the order of sanction of mutation before the Appellate Court. In view of this, it cannot be said that the respondent has intentionally violated the orders of the Court, as such, no contempt is made out. Present petition stands dismissed and notice served on the respondent stands discharged. July 25, 2011 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 3