DEEPAK KUMAR GUPTA Vs. NANDAN KUMAR MITTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Piyush Garg, the learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) THE respondent no.1 filed a suit for possession alleging that he is the owner of the property in question. An application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as C.P.C.) for grant of temporary injunction was also filed. The trial court, after hearing the parties, granted an injunction in favour of the respondent no.1 restraining the petitioner from interfering in the possession of the property with the plaintiff respondent no.1.

(3.) IT is alleged that the petitioner interfered in the possession of the plaintiff and violated the temporary injunction. Respondent no.1 accordingly filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2A of the C.P.C. praying that there has been a breach of the order of the court by the petitioner and that contempt proceedings should be initiated against him. In support of his contention, certain affidavits of witnesses were filed by way of evidence. In response to these contempt proceedings, the defendant petitioner filed an application 69C praying that he may be permitted to cross examine these persons who have filed the affidavits in support of the contempt application. The reason for cross -examining the witness has been given in paragraph 9 of the application 69C, which is extracted hereunder: -