Disposed

(O&M) Siri Ram and Ors. v. Hardev Singh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Sept 2013CR/1953/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge disposed of a civil revision petition by accepting apologies and directing respondents to pay a token sum of Rs. 40,000 each defendant to avoid imprisonment for violating a temporary injunction, pending deposit within two months.

What did the court decide?

Respondents to pay Rs. 10,000 each (total Rs. 40,000) to petitioners by depositing in trial court within two months to avoid simple imprisonment.

(O&M) Siri Ram and Ors. Vs Hardev Singh… — Execution and Attachment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 1953 of 2008

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Revision No. 1953 of 2008 Date of decision : September 05, 2013

Siri Ram and others

....Petitioners

versus

Hardev Singh and others

¶9

....Respondents

¶10

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal

¶11

Present : Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate, for the petitioners

¶12

Mr. Manjit Singh, Advocate, for the respondents Prem Singh petitioner no. 5 in person.

¶13

Respondents no. 1, 2, 4 and 5 also in person.

¶14

L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)

¶15

In this revision petition filed under under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, plaintiffs have assailed order dated 24.1.2005 passed by the trial court and judgment dated 29.11.2007 passed by the lower appellate court thereby dismissing application filed by plaintiffs/petitioners under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure for punishing the defendants/respondents for disobedience of interim stay order dated

¶16

Tiwana Dalbir Singh 2013.09.06 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document. High Court, Chandigarh

¶17

Civil Revision No. 1953 of 2008

¶18

-2-

¶19

11.4.1997 as extended vide order dated 17.4.1997.

¶20

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

¶21

In judgment dated 16.10.2012 Ex. P6 passed by learned Additional District Judge in first appeal arising out of the main suit, it has been held that respondents/defendants demolished well and chabachas existing in the suit land in violation of the aforesaid temporary injunction order and the said finding has attained finality having been upheld by this Court as well as by Hon'ble Supreme Court. When the aforesaid finding was pointed by counsel for the petitioners on the previous date of hearing, counsel for respondents prayed for adjournment to call the respondents for effecting settlement with the petitioners. Accordingly, respondents no. 1, 2, 4 and 5 have come present in person today pursuant to order of the preceding date. Their affidavits filed today in Court are taken on record subject to all just exceptions. In their affidavits, they have tendered unqualified and unconditional apology. Respondent no. 3 has since died and consequently, the instant revision petition qua him stands abated.

¶22

Petitioners and respondents (excluding respondent no. 3 since deceased) belong to the same village. The matter has already attained finality and possession of the suit land has also been restored in execution proceedings. In these circumstances, the ends of justice would be met if the matter is put to an end. As noticed hereinbefore, the respondents have

¶23

Tiwana Dalbir Singh 2013.09.06 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document. High Court, Chandigarh

¶24

Civil Revision No. 1953 of 2008

¶25

-3-

¶26

tendered unqualified and unconditional apology by way of affidavits. They are also ready to compensate the petitioners by paying token amount. Accordingly, respondents no. 1,2, 4 and 5 are directed to pay 10,000/each (total amount 40,000/-) to the petitioners by depositing the amount in the trial court. If the said amount is deposited within two months from today, the instant revision petition shall stand disposed of without any further order or direction. However, if the amount is not so deposited, the defaulting respondent shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months for having violated temporary injunction order passed in the suit.

¶27

( L.N. Mittal ) September 05, 2013 Judge 'dalbir'

¶28

Tiwana Dalbir Singh 2013.09.06 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document. High Court, Chandigarh

(O&M) Siri Ram and Ors. v. Hardev Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

(O&M) Siri Ram and Ors. v. Hardev Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gulab Kaur and Anr. Vs Balwant Singh and Ors.

Gurmukh Singh Bahra Vs Naresh Kumar

(O&M)Bhajan Lal Vs Shanti Devi

Gun Devi & Anr. Vs Mayawati & Ors.

Punjab Wakf Board Ambala Cantt. Vs Iqbal Chand & Ors.

(O&M) Vijay Bharti Vs Monica Bharti