COCP-2997 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 206 Avtar Singh Amandeep Singh CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) 1. violation of order dated Additional 2. has been passed by this Court: 2997-2024 (O&M) -1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP Date of Decision: Avtar Singh Versus Amandeep Singh and others CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. AS Gagrha, Advocate for the petitioner. Respondents No. 1 to 6 are present in person with Mr. Amardeep Singh Mann, Advocate (through V.C.) NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present contempt petition has been filed violation of order dated 22.12.2023 (Annexure P Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), SAS Nagar, Mohali On the last date of hearing i.e. been passed by this Court:- “CM-3220-CII-2025 Prayer in this application is for placing on record the final order on application under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC as Annexure R-3. The application is allowed subject to all just exceptions and the aforesaid order is taken on record as Annexure R-3. COCP-2997-2024 Present contempt petition has been filed alleging violation of order dated 22.12.2023 (Annexure P by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), SAS Nagar, Mohali in Civil Suit No.1125 of 2023 titled as “Avtar Singh vs. Amandeep Singh and others”, wherein it was directed as follows :- “…Heard on exparte ad application under order 39 Rule supported by an affidavit, copy of Jamabandi for the 1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP-2997-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.04.2026 .… Petitioner .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. AS Gagrha, Advocate for the petitioner. Respondents No. 1 to 6 are present in person with Mr. Amardeep Singh Mann, Advocate. The present contempt petition has been filed alleging (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned , SAS Nagar, Mohali. On the last date of hearing i.e. 25.03.2026, following order Prayer in this application is for placing on record the final order on application under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC as The application is allowed subject to all just exceptions and the aforesaid order is taken on record as Present contempt petition has been filed alleging violation of order dated 22.12.2023 (Annexure P-3) passed Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), SAS Nagar, Mohali in Civil Suit No.1125 of 2023 titled as “Avtar Singh vs. Amandeep Singh and others”, wherein it was “…Heard on exparte ad-interim injunction. The application under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC is duly supported by an affidavit, copy of Jamabandi for the alleging learned , following order Prayer in this application is for placing on record the final order on application under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC as The application is allowed subject to all just exceptions and the aforesaid order is taken on record as Present contempt petition has been filed alleging 3) passed Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), SAS Nagar, Mohali in Civil Suit No.1125 of 2023 titled as “Avtar Singh vs. Amandeep Singh and others”, wherein it was interim injunction. The 1 and 2 CPC is duly supported by an affidavit, copy of Jamabandi for the RISHU KATARIA 2026.04.20 13:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. COCP-2997 3. above, all the respondents are present in person in Court. 4. submits that there is no P-3) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), SAS 2997-2024 (O&M) -2 year 2016-17, copy of sale deed, copy of latha, copy of site plan and copy of Aadhar Card. Thus, in order to ensure the right of the plaintiff is not violated and also, to balance the defendants and to maintain equity, the parties are directed to maintain the status quo regarding the existing position of the suit property and throwing of waste/sewerage water of their house, constructed over below mentioned suit property/l map….” It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in blatant violation of the above said status quo direction, the respondents are not only water into the land of the petitioner but are also construction thereupon. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the photographs (Annexure P 5). It is further pointed out that the petitioner had also moved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, which was allowed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 17.1.2025 (Annexure R initial stay granted vide order dated 22.12.2025. Learned counsel refers to the said order and submits that even vide order dated 17.1.2025, it has been direct that “…Accordingly, the present stay application stands allowed with directions to defendants No.1 to 6 to refrain from discharging the water of their house towards the fields of plaintiff and they are further directed to keep the window in question covered till the final decision of the case…” Learned counsel submits that despite the above said order, the respondents continue to raise the construction as evident from the photographs (Annexure R out that the construction depicted at g photographs (Annexure P-5) is shown to be at lintel level in photographs (Annexure R-1). Learned counsel for the respondents submits that he has no instructions with regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the same, let the respondents be present in person before the Court on the next date of hearing. Adjourned to 18.4.2026. In compliance of the order dated above, all the respondents are present in person in Court. Learned counsel for the respondents appearing through V.C. submits that there is no violation of the order dated 3) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), SAS 2- 17, copy of sale deed, copy of latha, copy of site plan and copy of Aadhar Card. Thus, in order to ensure the right of the plaintiff is not violated and also, to balance the rights of the defendants and to maintain equity, the parties are directed to maintain the status quo regarding the existing position of the suit property and throwing of waste/sewerage water of their house, constructed over below mentioned suit property/land as depicted in site It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in blatant violation of the above said status quo direction, the respondents are not only releasing sewerage water into the land of the petitioner but are also raising In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the photographs (Annexure P- It is further pointed out that the petitioner had also moved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, owed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 17.1.2025 (Annexure R-3) thereby confirming the initial stay granted vide order dated 22.12.2025. Learned counsel refers to the said order and submits that even vide order dated 17.1.2025, it has been directed “…Accordingly, the present stay application stands allowed with directions to defendants No.1 to 6 to refrain from discharging the water of their house towards the fields of plaintiff and they are further directed to keep the window ered till the final decision of the case…”. Learned counsel submits that despite the above said order, the respondents continue to raise the construction as evident from the photographs (Annexure R-1). It is pointed out that the construction depicted at ground level in 5) is shown to be at lintel level in Learned counsel for the respondents submits that he has no instructions with regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. ew of the same, let the respondents be present in person before the Court on the next date of hearing. Adjourned to 18.4.2026.” In compliance of the order dated 25.03.2026 reproduced above, all the respondents are present in person in Court. Learned counsel for the respondents appearing through V.C. of the order dated 22.12.2023 (Annexure 3) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), SAS 17, copy of sale deed, copy of latha, copy of Thus, in order to ensure the right of the plaintiff rights of the defendants and to maintain equity, the parties are directed to maintain the status quo regarding the existing position of the suit property and throwing of waste/sewerage water of their house, constructed over and as depicted in site It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in blatant violation of the above said status quo releasing sewerage raising In this regard, learned counsel for It is further pointed out that the petitioner had also moved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, owed by the learned trial Court vide order 3) thereby confirming the initial stay granted vide order dated 22.12.2025. Learned counsel refers to the said order and submits that even vide ed “…Accordingly, the present stay application stands allowed with directions to defendants No.1 to 6 to refrain from discharging the water of their house towards the fields of plaintiff and they are further directed to keep the window Learned counsel submits that despite the above said order, the respondents continue to raise the construction as It is pointed round level in 5) is shown to be at lintel level in Learned counsel for the respondents submits that he has no instructions with regard to the submissions made by ew of the same, let the respondents be present in 6 reproduced Learned counsel for the respondents appearing through V.C. 22.12.2023 (Annexure 3) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), SAS RISHU KATARIA 2026.04.20 13:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. COCP-2997 Nagar Mohali Civil Judge (Senior Division), SAS Nagar Mohali 17.01.2025 (Annexure R 5. (Annexure P there is no violation or willful disobedience of the order Annexure P 6. that submissions and points out that from the perusal of photograph (Annexure P August, 2024 7. aforesaid submission the said construction, if any, was raised by the respondents after 17.01.2025. 8. contempt petition was filed on 23 P-5), therefore, are exactly prio violated that order dated 9. 2997-2024 (O&M) -3 Nagar Mohali, as the said order stood modified by Civil Judge (Senior Division), SAS Nagar Mohali 17.01.2025 (Annexure R-3). Relevant extract of which reads as follows: “xxx xxx 5. ....Though defendants no. 1 to 3 and plaintiff are co-sharers but they cannot take advantage of their wrong activities in the garb of principle that no injunction order can be granted against co-sharers co-sharers is in exclusive possession of particular Accordingly, the present stay application stands allowed with directions to defendants no. 1 to 6 discharging the water of their house towards the fields of plaintiff and they are further directed to keep the window in question covered till final decision of the pr It is, therefore, submitted that order dated (Annexure P-3) stood merged with the order dated there is no violation or willful disobedience of the order Annexure P Learned counsel for the petitioner that submissions and points out that from the perusal of photograph (Annexure P-5), it is clear that the respondents had raised construction August, 2024 at the site. Learned counsel for the respondents again opposes the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the petitioner the said construction, if any, was raised by the respondents after 17.01.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that contempt petition was filed on 23.08.2024 and the photographs , therefore, are exactly prior to that. As violated that order dated 22.12.2023 (Annexure P I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 3- the said order stood modified by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), SAS Nagar Mohali, vide order dated . Relevant extract of which reads as follows:- xxx ....Though defendants no. 1 to 3 and plaintiff are but they cannot take advantage of their wrong activities in the garb of principle that no injunction order can sharers especially when the other sharers is in exclusive possession of particular area. stay application stands allowed with directions to defendants no. 1 to 6 to refrain from discharging the water of their house towards the fields of plaintiff and they are further directed to keep the window in question covered till final decision of the present case.” It is, therefore, submitted that order dated 22.12.2023 3) stood merged with the order dated 17.01.2025. As such, there is no violation or willful disobedience of the order Annexure P-3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently controverts that submissions and points out that from the perusal of photograph 5), it is clear that the respondents had raised construction in Learned counsel for the respondents again opposes the of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the said construction, if any, was raised by the respondents after Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that that present .08.2024 and the photographs (Annexure . As such, the respondents have 22.12.2023 (Annexure P-3). I have heard learned counsel for the parties. the learned Additional , vide order dated ....Though defendants no. 1 to 3 and plaintiff are but they cannot take advantage of their wrong activities in the garb of principle that no injunction order can especially when the other area. stay application stands allowed with to refrain from discharging the water of their house towards the fields of plaintiff and they are further directed to keep the window in 22.12.2023 . As such, vehemently controverts that submissions and points out that from the perusal of photograph in Learned counsel for the respondents again opposes the and submits that the said construction, if any, was raised by the respondents after that present (Annexure such, the respondents have RISHU KATARIA 2026.04.20 13:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. COCP-2997 10. the parties, it is clear that there are disputed questions of facts involved in the present dispute which cannot be ascertained by this Court. Furthermore, respondents No. 1 to 6 who are present in person have undertaken the petitioner and shall not open the window till the pendency of the main suit. 11. to 6, learned counsel for the petitioner withdraw the instant petition, with liberty to the to the appropriate remedy, in accordance with law. 12. 13. 14. 15. 18.04.2026 rishu 2997-2024 (O&M) -4 From the afore-noted rival contenti the parties, it is clear that there are disputed questions of facts involved in the present dispute which cannot be ascertained by this Court. Furthermore, respondents No. 1 to 6 who are present in person have n that they shall not release the sewerage water into the fields of the petitioner and shall not open the window till the pendency of the main Subject to the aforesaid undertaking of respondents No. 1 to 6, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the instant petition, with liberty to the to the appropriate remedy, in accordance with law. Permitted to do so. Dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid Rule stands discharged. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 8.04.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable 4- noted rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, it is clear that there are disputed questions of facts involved in the present dispute which cannot be ascertained by this Court. Furthermore, respondents No. 1 to 6 who are present in person have shall not release the sewerage water into the fields of the petitioner and shall not open the window till the pendency of the main Subject to the aforesaid undertaking of respondents No. 1 submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the instant petition, with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to the appropriate remedy, in accordance with law. with the liberty aforesaid. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Yes/No ons of learned counsel for the parties, it is clear that there are disputed questions of facts involved in the present dispute which cannot be ascertained by this Court. Furthermore, respondents No. 1 to 6 who are present in person have shall not release the sewerage water into the fields of the petitioner and shall not open the window till the pendency of the main Subject to the aforesaid undertaking of respondents No. 1 submits that he may be permitted to petitioner to take recourse RISHU KATARIA 2026.04.20 13:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.