MAHENDER SINGH Vs. MAHENDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, firstly, the order of the learned trial court, dtd. 30/7/2015, (a part of Annexure P-3), passed on the application filed by the respondent under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC, by which the trial court had not imposed any punishment upon the petitioner but had directed him to get the sale-deed cancelled subject to final decision of the court (in the suit), was an order not challenged by the respondent but by the petitioner himself and therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned appellate court (Annexure P-5), dated October 3, 2016, remitting the matter to the trial court to pass fresh orders on punishment of the petitioner, in the light of the observations made by that court, virtually holding that the petitioner was guilty of contempt, was an order which could not have been passed in such appeal, when no appeal was filed by the respondents herein, further especially at a time when the suit itself had been dismissed on August 13, 2015, i.e. more than one year prior to the passing of the impugned order.

(2.) Mr. Khehar also relies upon a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Rachhpal Singh v. Gurdarshan Singh, AIR 1985 Punjab and Haryana 299, wherein though in that case the suit had been withdrawn, after which the application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC was filed, the Division Bench held as follows:-

(3.) He also relies upon a judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court in Babu Lal v. Deep Chand and others, 2016 (2) PLR 485, to similar effect.