None 8093 of 2011 on 27 October 2007

1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?see judgment?

2. To be referred to reporters or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Present:-Mr. Amit Jain, Advocatefor the petitioners.

RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL)

The petitioners have filed the instant petition for quashingof the order dated 27.10.2007 passed by the Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Bathinda and the order dated 01.09.2011 passedby the Additional District Judge Bathinda, whereby, application filedon behalf of the petitioners to proceed against the respondents underOrder 39 Rule 2-A CPC has been dismissed.

In the aforesaid application, the petitioners have alleged that respondents have committed contempt of the Court by violatingthe interim order dated 16.07.2002 whereby parties were directed tomaintain status quo.

It is the allegation of the petitioners that after passing of the aforesaid order dated 16.7.2002, the respondents have raised construction over the property in dispute and thus, in the aforesaidmanner, they have violated the interim order.

However, it is a matter of record that on 16.7.2002, theCourt had passed the order directing the parties only to the extent ofmaintaining status quo with regard to alienation of the suit propertyand admittedly, no order was passed with regard to maintainingstatus quo with regard to raising construction. As per the facts, thepetitioners had already alienated the suit land prior to the passing ofthe interim order.

Even otherwise, main suit was dismissed by the trialCourt and appeal filed by the petitioners against the aforesaidjudgment and decree of the Civil Court was also dismissed.

In view thereof, I find no merit in this petition.Dismissed.

October 30, 2013

savita

(RAKESH KUMAR GARG)JUDGE