2026:HHC:13545 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 692 of 2024 Date of Decision: 24.4.2026. _______________________________________________________ Pritam Chand (deceased) through his LRs …….Petitioners. Versus Chanchla Devi … Respondent. _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioners: Mr. Rohit, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R.K. Gautam, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Sahil Dixit, Advocate. Romesh Verma , Judge (oral): The present contempt petition has been instituted by the respondent in the Regular Second Appeal with the averments that despite the interim order of stay, which has been passed by this Court on 26.7.2012 in CMP No. 330 of 2012, whereby the parties were directed to maintain status quo qua nature, possession and title in respect   of   the   suit   property   till   disposal   of   the   main   appeal,   the appellant has raised construction over the suit land. 2. It   has   been   averred   in   the   application   that   taking advantage of the fact that Pritam   Chand had expired on 3.1.2024. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:13545 The appellant in the RSA, namely, Chanchla Devi along with her two sons, namely, Jalam Singh and Sudesh Kumar have started making illegal and unauthorized construction over the suit land comprised in Khasra No. 744. 3. In order to substantiate their contention, the petitioner has   placed   on   record   the   copy   of   the   General   Diary   and   the photographs in order to show that the appellant in the RSA had raised the construction over the suit land. The photographs, which have been appended in the present petition show that certain pillars have been erected and on that count, after perusing the same, notices were issued to the respondent in the RSA. 4. On the last date of hearing, when the matter was fixed, it was   stated   by   Mr. R.K.   Gautam,   learned   Senior   Counsel   for   the respondents that both the parties are trying to reconcile the matter and they are in talks with the present petitioner. Therefore, on his request, the case was fixed for today. 5. Today, Mr. R.K. Gautam, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents   has   placed   on   record   the   photographs   in   order   to demonstrate and show that the alleged structure which has been raised during the pendency of the appeal stands demolished. The said photographs are taken on record. The said submission of Mr. R.K.   Gautam,   learned   Senior   Counsel   for   the   respondents   are 3 2026:HHC:13545 admitted by   Mr. Rohit, learned counsel for the petitioner and he endorses   and   acknowledges   that   the   structure,   which   was   raised during the pendency of the appeal stands demolished. 6. The   son   of   the   respondent,   namely,   Jalam   Singh   is present in the Court. He tenders his unconditional apology for raising construction on the pretext that he was not knowing the intricacy of law and the said construction was raised on some wrong belief. The apology of the respondent is accepted and keeping in view the fact that the structure  which was raised  has  been  demolished  by the respondent,   therefore,   nothing   remains   to   be   adjudicated   in   the present case and after discharging the notice, the present petition is closed. (Romesh Verma), Judge 22nd April, 2026 (Guleria)