The High Court exercised powers under Article 227 to dismiss a petition seeking to set aside an order striking off respondents 5 to 8. The High Court found no irregularity as the respondents were not parties to the main case and were acting in official capacity.
Petition dismissed; order dated 28.09.2022 striking off Respondents 5 to 8 remains in force.
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.
115
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR-191-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision: 12.01.2023
Ranbir Singh
..…Petitioner
Versus
Naresh and others ….Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Present: Mr. Manoj Tanwar, Advocate for the petitioner.
ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)
Petition herein,under Article 227 of Constitution of India, is for setting aside order dated 28.09.2022 (Annexure P-1),whereby the names of respondents No.5 to 8 have been struck off from the application filed by plaintiff/petitioner for taking action against respondents No.1 to 8 allegedly for committing contempt of Court by violating the injunction order dated 22.02.2021 (Annexure P-3).
“xxx xxx xxx
From the perusal of the case file, it is made out that since the present application has been filed by the plaintiff under Order Rule 2A CPC for requesting to take action against the respondents for committing contempt of court by violating the injunction order dated 22.02.2021 passed in main case bearing CIS no. 91/2021 titled ‘Ranbir Vs. Naresh’. However respondents no 5 to 8 are not the party to the main case. Therefore it cannot be said that respondents no 5 to 8 were
ASHISH 2023.01.16 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CR-191-2023 (O&M)
-2-
bound by the order of the court dated 22.02.2021. From the facts of the present application, it is also made out that respondents no 5 to 8 were only acting in discharge of their official duty. Therefore, since the said respondents were not the party to the main case, then it cannot be said that respondent no 5 to 8 could commit contempt of the order of the court dated 22.02.2021. Perusal of the order dated 22.02.2021 reveals that no directions have been passed against the police by the court in any manner.
Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that respondent no 5 to 8 have been improperly and unnecessarily impleaded as a party in the present application, which shall only lead to their unnecessary harassment. Therefore names of the Respondent no 5 to 8 are hereby struck off from the present application in interest of justice exercising powers u/o 1 rule 10(2) CPC.”
(ARUN MONGA) JUDGE
January 12, 2023 ashish Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No
ASHISH 2023.01.16 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court could interfere under its extraordinary revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 Constitution of India in an order striking off respondents for harassment.
Whether respondents bound by a court order can be said to have committed contempt if they were not parties to the main case and were acting in discharge of official duty.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ranbir Singh
Naresh and others
Arun Monga
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
