In a contempt petition, the Court accepted an undertaking from respondents to halt construction until the revision petition is disposed of and discharged the rule.
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.
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
COCP NO. 1465 OF 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: May 16, 2012. ***
Ramesh Kumar and another Vs Gaurav Luthra and others.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
Present: Shri Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Shri Gurinder Pal Singh, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 5.
Shri R.D.Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
SURYA KANT, J (ORAL)
Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 5 refers to the averments made in the reply affidavit and states at the Bar that construction has been stopped. He further states that no construction shall be made during the pendency of the revision petition, unless permitted by the Court. The above stated statement/undertaking given on behalf of the private respondents satisfies learned counsel for the petitioners.
The Contempt petition is, accordingly, disposed of with a clarificatory direction that the respondents shall abide by the statement/undertaking till the revision petition is disposed of.
Rule discharged.
(SURYA KANT) JUDGE
May 16, 2012. Malik
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to permit construction of the disputed property during the pendency of the revision petition.
Ramesh Kumar and another
Gaurav Luthra
Surya Kant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
