HARBAKSH SINGH SAINI Vs. HARBHAJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HARBAKSH Singh Saini, the Landlord, has moved the present petition, under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, praying that Harbhajan Singh is a kind of tres-passer and, therefore, had given an undertaking in the Court of District Judge, Chandigarh on 9 31991 that he shall vacate the portion of the premises in his possession by 15-9 J 991 but still he has not vacated the premises and, therefore, he should be proceeded against and punished under the Contempt of Courts Act

(2.) A perusal of the record shows that in the proceedings before the District Judge, Chandigarh on 9 3-1991, Harbaksh Singh Saini, the landlord, was not a party. The aforesaid dispute was between Harbhajan Singh the present respondent on one hand and the Estate Officer on the other, under Section 19 of the Public Premises Act, 1971. The Estate Officer, Chandigarh, has not come to this Court to seek any redress under the Contempt of Courts Act.

(3.) ON behalf of Harbhajan Singh respondent, it has been pointed out that he had instituted a suit for permanent injunction against Harbaksh Singh, the landlord and he possessed an order of temporary injunction which has also been affirmed by means of a speaking order on 3-10-199' by Sub Judge 2nd Class, Chandigarh. Here, Harbhajam Singh, the present respondent, possess an order of temporary injunction as seen above and there is no good ground to proceed against this respondent in the present proceedings.