PIAR KAUR Vs. PRITHVI PAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question that comes up for consideration and seeks answer is as to if the respondent can be termed to have committed any contempt of Court.

(2.) THE relevant facts are that petitioner Piar Kaur is resident of Amritsar. She owns house at Tonga Colony, Green Avenue, Amritsar. Her contention is that respondent was inducted as a licensee. A licence deed was executed. On the expiry of the period of licence, the respondent did not hand over vacant possession of the house to the petitioner. He filed a civil suit for permanent injunction to restrain the petitioner not to interfere in his possession. The petitioner had put in appearance and submitted the written statement. During the pendency of the suit, the respondent agreed to vacate the house on the intervention of certain respectables of the locality. In court, the statements have been recorded. The respondent had made the following statement :-

(3.) AFTER the expiry of seven months period when the respondent did not vacate the property, the petitioner claimed that the respondent had violated the order of the Court and, therefore, invokes sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.