Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 55414 (PNJ)

SANTOKH SINGH THROUGH ITS LEGAL HEIR SURJIT SINGH v. ARJAN SINGH AND ORS.

COCP/1378/2022 · 2025-09-16

Nidhi Gupta

Contempt Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 101 Santokh Singh (since deceased) through legal heir Surjit Singh Arjan Singh and others CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) proceedings against the respondents for not complying the interim order dated 28.4.1999 (Annexure P Court in RSA LRs vs. Arjan Singh and others” vide which the appeal was admitted and the appellant was ordered to be not dispossessed except in accordance with law. maintainable being barred by limitation. of Courts Act, 1971 ‘ either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed.’ COCP-1378-2022 (O & M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.1378 of 2022 (O & M) Date of decision : Santokh Singh (since deceased) through legal heir Surjit Singh Versus Arjan Singh and others CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Ashok Bector, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Bhupender Banga, Advocate for the respondents. NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) Prayer in this petition is for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for not complying the interim order dated 28.4.1999 (Annexure P-1) passed by a Predecessor Bench of this Court in RSA-3742-1998 titled as “Santokh Singh (since deceased) throug LRs vs. Arjan Singh and others” vide which the appeal was admitted and the appellant was ordered to be not dispossessed except in accordance with First and foremost the present contempt petition is not maintainable being barred by limitation. As per Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 ‘No Court shall initiate any proceedings of contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed.’ Thus, a contempt petition cannot be entertained at this belated 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1378 of 2022 (O & M) Date of decision :-16.09.2025 Santokh Singh (since deceased) through legal heir Surjit Singh …..Petitioner …..Respondents HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Bhupender Banga, Advocate for the respondents. this petition is for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for not complying the interim order 1) passed by a Predecessor Bench of this 1998 titled as “Santokh Singh (since deceased) through LRs vs. Arjan Singh and others” vide which the appeal was admitted and the appellant was ordered to be not dispossessed except in accordance with First and foremost the present contempt petition is not per Section 20 of the Contempt No Court shall initiate any proceedings of contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been Thus, a contempt petition cannot be entertained at this belated VIJAY ASIJA 2025.09.18 10.27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document stage in respect of order dated 28.4.1999. given for the delay in filing the present contempt petition. in the present contempt petition alleging that the respondents during the period of Covid, demolished the part of the demised premises and taken away the valuable things in order to construct house on part of the demised premise. No date, no details mentioned any continuing cause, has accrued to the petitioner. instructions, informs this Cour between the petitioner and the respondents; and subsequently a compromise was petitioner and the respondents. counsel for the petitioner dated 11.12.2021 (Annexure P demolition. facts, and also as the present petition is b stands dismissed. September Vijay Asija Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable COCP-1378-2022 (O & M) stage in respect of order dated 28.4.1999. Even no explanation has been given for the delay in filing the present contempt petition. Furthermore, the petitioner has made utterly vague statem in the present contempt petition alleging that the respondents during the period of Covid, demolished the part of the demised premises and taken away the valuable things in order to construct house on part of the demised premise. No date, no details of the alleged demolition etc. have been mentioned. Thus, it cannot be said that any cause for contempt, any continuing cause, has accrued to the petitioner. Furthermore, learned counsel for the respondents, on instructions, informs this Court that in 2001 a compromise was effected between the petitioner and the respondents; and subsequently a compromise was also effected between the legal representative petitioner and the respondents. It has also or the petitioner himself that petitioner has moved dated 11.12.2021 (Annexure P-2) to the police in respect of the alleged demolition. Accordingly, as petitioner has raised and also as the present petition is b dismissed. Rule stands discharged. Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of. September 16, 2025 Vijay Asija Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No 2 Even no explanation has been given for the delay in filing the present contempt petition. Furthermore, the petitioner has made utterly vague statements in the present contempt petition alleging that the respondents during the period of Covid, demolished the part of the demised premises and taken away the valuable things in order to construct house on part of the demised of the alleged demolition etc. have been Thus, it cannot be said that any cause for contempt, let alone any continuing cause, has accrued to the petitioner. Furthermore, learned counsel for the respondents, on t that in 2001 a compromise was effected between the petitioner and the respondents; and subsequently a effected between the legal representatives of the also been pointed out by learned petitioner has moved the complaint 2) to the police in respect of the alleged Accordingly, as petitioner has raised disputed questions of and also as the present petition is barred by limitation, the same Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2025.09.18 10.27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document