Harpal Singh v. Kuldeep Singh And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH COCP-2542-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 28.08.2025 Harpal Singh ... Petitioner(s)

Versus

Kuldeep Singh & Ors ... Respondent(s) CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present :

Mr. Rohit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 12. Mr. Raj Karan Singh Brar, AAG Haryana.

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral) 1.

The present contempt petition has been preferred under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for initiation of proceedings against the respondents for disobedience of the order dated 08.12.2022 passed in RSA-1707-2022 whereby status quo qua possession was directed to be maintained.

2.

The petitioner in the present case is the plaintiff-respondent in the regular second appeal (RSA-1707-2022). The allegation in the present contempt petition is that the order of status quo has been violated and the petitioner has been dispossessed from the suit property during the pendency of the appeal despite the status quo order. Reply has been filed. A perusal of the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court reveals that the decree dated 11.04.2014 passed in the said suit by the Trial Court was that the suit was decreed for possession in favour of the plaintiff and the defendants were Yogesh Sharma 2025.08.29 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judgment/order.

Chandigarh

COCP-2542-2025 (O&M) directed to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff within a period of three months. The said judgment and decree was challenged by the defendants before the First Appellate Court which appeal was dismissed vide the judgment and decree dated 15.01.2019. Challenging the said judgments and decrees, a regular second appeal being RSA-1707-2022 was filed.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner today states that despite the status quo order, possession has been taken from him. 4.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 12 has pointed out that possession was never with the plaintiff-petitioner herein and infact the decree itself was directing the defendant-respondent for handing over the possession, therefore, in the regular second appeal filed by the defendant-respondent, the order of status quo was passed. 5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show to this Court as to when he came in possession of the suit property when admittedly till date no execution has been filed by him. 6.

In view thereof, I do not find any merit in the present contempt petition. The same being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off. 28.08.2025 Yogesh Sharma ( ALKA SARIN ) JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO Yogesh Sharma 2025.08.29 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judgment/order.

Chandigarh