Harjinder Singh Vs Rajesh Kumar Singh and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Harjinder Singh Vs Rajesh Kumar Singh and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Permission granted to withdraw the contempt petition; petition dismissed as withdrawn, rule discharged, and pending application(s), if any, disposed of. No finding recorded on the alleged violation of the order dated 27.08.2025.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents committed contempt by violating the order dated 27.08.2025 passed by the Writ Court in CWP-3586-2025 (and connected matters including CWP-550-2025).

Ratio / Principle

In view of the respondents' contention that the petitioner had himself filed the pending execution application before the Armed Force Tribunal, learned counsel for the petitioner sought leave to withdraw the instant contempt petition, and the Court permitted the withdrawal.

Key takeaways

The contempt petition was dismissed as withdrawn.ratio¶24
Rule stands discharged.ratio¶25
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt petition (COCP-5891-2025 O&M, High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Nidhi Gupta, J., oral, decision 08.04.2026) filed by Harjinder Singh against Rajesh Kumar Singh and others, alleging violation of the order dated 27.08.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Writ Court in CWP-3586-2025 and connected matters including the petitioner's own CWP-550-2025, 'Harjinder Singh and others vs. Union of India and others'. At the outset, counsel for the respondents pointed out that the petitioner had himself filed MA (Execution) Application No. 1810 2023, 'Harjinder Singh vs. Union of India and others', pending before the Armed Force Tribunal for implementation of the judgment and decree dated 11.04.2023 (filed on 17.09.2023), and that the order dated 27.08.2025 had not been brought to the Tribunal's notice. Counsel for the petitioner thereupon sought permission to withdraw the petition; leave was granted, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn, rule stood discharged, and pending application(s), if any, stood disposed of. No adjudication was made on the alleged contempt.

COCP-5891-2025 (O&M) -1-

IN THE H IGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

104 CO C P-5891-2025 (O&M)

Dat e of Decision: 08.04.2026

Harjinder S ingh

.… Petitioner

Versus

Rajesh Ku m ar Singh and others .... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present: - Mr. Ujwal Anand, Advocate f or the petitioner.

Mr. Rohit Verma, Advocate f o r the respondents.

NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

The present contempt peti t ion has been filed alleging violation o f order dated 27.08.2025 (An n exure P-1) passed by the Writ Court in C WP-3586-2025 and other co n nected matters including the petition fil e d by the present petitioner bea r ing No. CWP-550-2025, titled as ‘Harjin d er Singh and others vs. Union o f India and others’ whereby it

has been d i rected as under:-

“xxx xxx xxx 8. It has been brought to t he notice of this Court that one of the soldiers is 85 years ol d is still looking forward for the implementation of the relief g ranted by the competent Court of law despite there bei n g no impediment for the implementation of the same.”

At the very outset, it is pointe d out by learned counsel for the responden t s that MA (Execution) Appli c ation bearing No. 1810 2023, titled as ‘ H arjinder Singh vs. Union of India and others’ has been filed by the petitio n er which is pending consider a tion before the Armed Force Tribunal. L earned counsel submits that th e petitioner himself has filed the aforesaid e xecution petition for impleme n tation of judgment and decree

RISHU KATARIA 2026.04.10 13:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

COCP-5891-2025 (O&M) -2-

dated 11.0 4 .2023 on 17.09.2023. It is sub m itted that even the order dated 27.08.202 5 has not been brought to th e notice of the Armed Force Tribunal.

In view above, learned couns e l for the petitioner submits that

he may be permitted to withdraw the insta n t petition.

Heard.

Permitted to do so.

Dismissed as withdrawn.

Rule stands discharged.

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

08.04.2026 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) rishu JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

Whether Reportable Yes/No

RISHU KATARIA 2026.04.10 13:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.