C.O.C.P. No. 1601 of 2012 (O&M). Case: Parbhati Lal Vs Prabhu. High Court of Punjab (India)
| Case Number | C.O.C.P. No. 1601 of 2012 (O&M) |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Party-in-Person and For Respondents: Party-in-person with Counsel Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate |
| Judges | Mahesh Grover, J. |
| Issue | Contempt of Court |
| Judgement Date | July 30, 2013 |
| Court | High Court of Punjab (India) |
Judgment:
Mahesh Grover, J., (At Chandigarh)
C.M. No. 16021-CII of 2013
1. C.M. is allowed. Reply filed by way of affidavit of Prabhu is taken on record.
C.M. No. 16022-CII of 2013
Allowed as prayed for.
C.O.C.P. No. 1601 of 2012
2. The petitioner alleges violation of the order of this Court vide which the following directions were given:
(i) The petitioner-JD shall complete the earth filling work on the plot being offered by him to the DH and shall also get the said plot fenced with barbed wire. The needful shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order;
(ii) The JD shall file an affidavit regarding completion of the above mentioned works before the executing Court, Narnaul, who shall then appoint a Local Commissioner at the cost of the JD to visit the spot and submit a compliance report.
(iii) The petitioner-JD shall obtain a resolution duly signed by the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat to the effect that the alternative plot being offered to the DH, is free from all encumbrances and has been allotted to the petitioner JD only. In other words, it shall be got certified that the said plot does not belong to the Gram Panchayat, Chapra or any other private individual.
(iv) The subject decree was passed way back on 2.3.1998. The respondent-DH is struggling from last over 11 years to seek execution thereof. From the photographs on record, it appears that the construction has been raised by the petitioner-JD in utter defiance of the civil Court decree. In these circumstances, mere offer of an alternative plot can not be the complete satisfaction of the subject-decree. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and the hue and cry raised by the DH that his two trees have also been removed, I further direct the petitioner-JD to pay a lump-sum amount of Rs. 20,000/- to the DH towards costs. The costs shall be deposited with the executing Court or paid to the respondent by way of demand draft, within one month of receipt of certified copy of this order.
(v) In case the petitioner-JD fails to comply with the aforementioned directions/undertakings, this revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed and the Executing Court shall see that the directions issued by it for removal of the construction raised by the JD are complied with without any delay.
(vi) Needless to say that once the alternative site is offered and possession delivered to the respondent-DH...
To continue reading
Request your trial