Virender Singh v. Harvesh Kumar & ORS

$~ A-2 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CONT.CAS(C) 947/2016 & CM Nos.29346-48/2016 VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Surinder Singh, Adv.

versus HARVESH KUMAR & ORS ..... Respondent Through Mr.Praveen Kumar Jain, Mr.Amit Dogra and Mr.Harvesh Kumar, Advs. with R-1 & R-4 Ms.Manika Tripathi Pandey, Adv. for GNCTD with Mr.Ashutosh Kaushik, Adv. and Mr.Bhura Singh, SI for R-2 & R-3

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH

O R D E R

% 20.09.2016 1.

The present Contempt petition is filed stating that the petitioner was in physical possession of the premises when the petition filed by the petitioner, namely, CM(M)621/2016 came up for hearing before the Court. It is stated that the Hon'ble court was about to dictate an injunction order to protect the petitioner, when the respondent instructed the learned counsel to submit that the petitioner has been dispossessed from the property. Hence, it is urged that this Court did not pass an interim order and appointed a Local Commissioner to visit the premises to verify who is in actual possession of the premises. Various other allegations are made regarding alleged contempt of the court including the fact that the Local Commissioner had recorded that the petitioner was in possession of the house when he visited the place on 24.6.2016.

Hence, it is the submission of the petitioner that the CONT.CAS.947/2016

respondents have made false statements that the petition has become infructuous and have deprived the petitioner from interim protection. 2.

It is clear that no interim order was passed by this court. Merely on the submissions of the petitioner or his counsel the respondents cannot be hauled up for contempt of court.

3.

There is no merit in the contempt petition. Same is dismissed. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. JAYANT NATH, J SEPTEMBER 20, 2016 n CONT.CAS.947/2016