Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant dropped contempt proceedings COCP No.1079 of 2012 leniently, recording the respondent's claim of possession via execution, while reserving rights for the petitioner to seek revival if the claim proves false.
Proceedings dropped with direction to revive if possession claim is incorrect.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
COCP No.1079 of 2012 (O & M) Date of Decision : May 22, 2012
Kuldip Chand Malhotra
..... PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
Prem Pal
..... RESPONDENT(S)
. . .
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
. . .
. . .
PRESENT: - Mr. V.K. Kaushal, Advocate, for Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Vikram Anand, Advocate, for the respondent.
. . .
Surya Kant, J (Oral)
possession of the premises has been handed over to the petitioner through execution proceedings.
COCP No.1079 of 2012 [2]
undertaking, however, taking a lenient view, I drop these proceedings with a clarificatory direction that if the above stated stand of the respondent is found to be incorrect, in that event, not only the petitioner shall be entitled to take possession with police assistance, he shall also be entitled to seek revival of these contempt
proceedings.
(Surya Kant)
May 22, 2012 Judge avin
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to proceed with contempt proceedings after respondent's claim of possession.
Kuldip Chand Malhotra
Prem Pal
Surya Kant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
