Mahesh Kumar Vs Randhir Singh and Another — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Mahesh Kumar Vs Randhir Singh and Another — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of, no further orders being required; petitioner permitted to take recourse to the appropriate remedy as per law; rule discharged; pending application(s), if any, disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether any further orders are required in COCP-1609-2021, alleging willful violation of the interim status quo order dated 09.02.2010 passed in RSA-3368-2009, when learned counsel for the parties have admitted that the said second appeal stands decided vide judgment dated 20.08.2021 and the interim order has merged into the final judgment.

Court's answer

Since the parties admitted that RSA-3368-2009 was dismissed vide judgment dated 20.08.2021, and the interim order merges into the final judgment whereby all 08 co-sharers are in separate possession of the property, no further orders are required in the present petition; the same stands disposed of.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner is permitted to take recourse to the appropriate remedy, as per law.

Key takeaways

Rule stands discharged.ratio¶30
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt Petition (COCP) – Alleged willful violation of interim order dated 09.02.2010 (Annexure P-3) passed in RSA-3368-2009 'Prithvi Singh vs. Sumer Chand and others', directing parties to maintain status quo over the property in dispute – Learned counsel for the parties admitted that the said second appeal was dismissed by a co-ordinate Bench vide judgment dated 20.08.2021 (Annexure R-1), wherein it was held that all 08 co-sharers had partitioned the property by allocating plots pursuant to a family partition of 1980 and were in separate possession – Interim order merges into the final judgment – Petition rendered infructuous; no further orders required – Petition disposed of – Petitioner permitted to take recourse to appropriate remedy as per law – Rule discharged – Pending applications disposed of.

COCP-1609-2021 -1-

IN THE H IGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

211 CO C P-1609-2021

Dat e of Decision: 08.09.2025

Mahesh K u mar .… Petitioner

Versus

Randhir Si n gh and another .... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present: - Mr. Rakesh Bakshi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Kumar Sharma, A d vocate for Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate f or respondent No. 1.

Mr. Jitender Singh, Clerk for respondent No. 2-Depart m ent is present in person with Mr. Priyavrat Parashar, AAG, Haryana.

NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

The present petition has bee n filed alleging willful violation of interim o rder dated 09.02.2010 (Annex u re P-3) passed by a co-ordinate Bench of t h is Court in RSA-3368-2009 tit l ed as ‘Prithvi Singh vs. Sumer Chand an d others’, whereby the parties w ere directed to maintain status quo over t h e property in dispute.

Learned counsel for the p a rties have admitted that the aforesaid second appeal bearing RSA-336 8 -2009, has been dismissed by a co-ordinat e Bench of this Court vide ord e r dated 20.08.2021 (Annexure R-1). Noticing the above facts, followin g order dated 19.04.2023 was passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Cou r t:-

“The petitioner allege s violation of the order dated 09.02.2010 passed in RSA- 3 368-2009, vide which, while issuing notice, the parties w e re directed to maintain status

RISHU KATARIA 2025.09.09 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

COCP-1609-2021

-2-

quo over the property in dis p ute and the subsequent order dated 07.09.2012, vide which the stay order was directed to continue.

Brief facts of the ca s e are that petitioner Mahesh Kumar along with one S u mer Chand filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents with regard to the plots in dispute, with a fu r ther prayer that the defendants should be restrained from int e rfering in their possession. The Civil Judge, vide judgment d ated 05.11.2008, decreed the suit. Two separate appeals f iled by defendant No.5 were dismissed on 21.05.2009. Th ereafter, aforesaid RSA was filed by defendant No.5 Prith v i Singh.

Learned counsel for r espondent No.1 submits that aforesaid RSA stands de c ided vide judgment dated 20.08.2021 (Annexure R-1), i n which it is held that all 08 cosharers have partitioned the p roperty by allocating the plots, which fell to the share of eac h co-owner, as family partition took place in the year 1980 a n d in the light of the same, RSA was disposed of.

In view of the above, i n terim order, which merges into the final judgment, wherein a n appeal was disposed of by observing that all 08 co-sha r ers are in separate possession of the property, therefore, thi s petition is disposed of having been rendered as infructuous.

At this stage, Mr. Ra k esh Bakshi, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner app e ars and seeks some time. List again on 17.08.20 2 3.”

Learned counsel for the peti t ioner very fairly admitted the above said facts as ‘true’.

In view of the above, no fu r ther orders are required to be passed in t h e present petition, the same sta n ds disposed of, accordingly.

RISHU KATARIA 2025.09.09 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

COCP-1609-2021 -3-

At this stage, learned counse l for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be permitted to tak e recourse to the appropriate remedy, as per law.

Permitted to do so.

Rule stands discharged.

Pending application(s), if any , shall also stand disposed of.

08.09.2025 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) rishu JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

Whether Reportable Yes/No

RISHU KATARIA 2025.09.09 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.