High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Raj Kumar & Ors. v. Narinder Singh & Ors. - COCP-1041-2005  RD-P&H 4566 (21 July 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
COCP No.1041 of 2005
Date of decision: July 28, 2006.
Raj Kumar & Ors.
Shri Narinder Singh & Ors.
Present: Shri C.B. Goel, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri R.D. Sharma, Dy. Advocate General, Haryana Shri S.S. Dinarpur, Advocate for respondents No.3 to 5.
Surya Kant, J. (Oral)
This contempt petition has been filed on the premise that RSA No.816 of 1997 (Murti Mari Guga Peer Mandir v. Badri & Ors) was disposed of on January 16, 2004 in terms of a compromise deed executed between the parties and which was placed on record along with CM No.292-C of 2004 in the above said appeal and marked as "A".
It is alleged that when in terms of the compromise decree, the petitioners and other respectables wanted to take possessions of the subject land, the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Yamuna Nagar, namely, respondent No.1 tried to occupy the said vacant land by putting barbed wire, alleging further that respondent No.1 allegedly pressurized respondent COCP No.1041 of 2005 -: 2 :-
No.2, namely, the person who suffered the compromise decree, referred to above, and as a result of the said pressure, respondent No.2 made a statement before the civil court on 18.9.2004 in order to wriggle out of the compromise.
In sum and substance, it is averred that the respondents have an evil design to grab the Mandir property.
In response to the show cause notice, reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents.
I have heard Learned Counsel for the parties also.
As mentioned in the reply, a society known as Chhachhrauli Guga Mari Mandir Development Society has been constituted and the Deputy Commissioner and Additional Deputy Commissioner, Yamuna Nagar have been nominated as ex-officio Chairman and Vice-Chairman respectively of the said society. The General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Yamuna Nagar as well as other officers of the local administration are also members of the executive committee. Since the society runs affairs of the Mandir in question, it appears that the petitioners, by initiating these contempt proceedings, want adjudication of the dispute over the management of the Mandir. Admittedly, the said Society or the officers of the District Administration were not party to the regular second appeal No.816 of 1997, which was allegedly compromised and in terms thereof the order dated January 16, 2004 was passed by this Court. Respondent No.1 or for that reason the other officers of the District Administration, thus, cannot be said to be bound by the aforesaid order.
In this view of the matter, no case to proceed with these contempt proceedings is made out which are accordingly dropped with COCP No.1041 of 2005 -: 3 :-
liberty to the petitioners to take appropriate action before an appropriate forum to get their right to manage the affairs of the said Mandir settled, if so advised.
July 28, 2006. [ Surya Kant ]
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.