The court disposed of the contempt petition as the underlying order had been complied with by the respondents and challenged via a writ petition, leaving nothing to survive.
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 AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
COCP No.1331 of 2013 Date of decision: 24.01.2017
Gurdev Singh and another
..Petitioners
Versus
Mohammed Shagin and another
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present: Ms. Anna Bansal, Advocate for Mr. Ram Lal Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. Deepali Puri, Advocate for the respondents.
Daya Chaudhary, J. (Oral)
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that order passed by this Court has been complied with and the petitioners have also challenged the said order by way of filing writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has not disputed the factum of challenge of order by way of filing writ petition but she submits that the wrong order has been passed.
Since the compliance has been made by the respondents, nothing survives in the contempt petition as the order has also been challenged by way of filing writ petition.
Disposed of accordingly.
24.01.2017 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) neetu JUDGE √ Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No √ Whether Reportable Yes/No
Neetu Rani 2017.01.27 12:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
Gurdev Singh
Mohammed Shagin
Daya Chaudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
