JASVINDER SINGH Vs. JAI INDER PAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for initiation of the contempt proceedings against the respondents for their having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the mandate contained in order dtd. 7/1/2014, passed by this Court in Execution Petition No. 4015 of 2013, whereby respondent No.1 was restrained from altering, gifting, transferring, alienating, settling, selling and creating encumbrance, in any manner, whatsoever, on the immovable properties situate in Mauja Bijan/368, Mauja Mangwain/366/8, Mauja Suhra/366/6, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, HP, including bank accounts and vehicles, owned and possessed by the respondent.

(2.) Precise grouse of the petitioner is that despite there being aforesaid restraint order, respondents sold the aforesaid property and as such, is liable to be punished under the contempt of courts Act. Reply filed by the respondents in the instant proceedings, reveals that land, as detailed herein above, stood sold in the year, 1997 and mutation qua the same was effected in the year, 2014. Since land stood sold in the year, 1997 i.e. prior to passing of the order dtd. 7/1/2014, no action of the respondents can be said to be contumacious. Mutation, if any, entered in the year, 2014, after execution of the sale deed in the year, 1997 is of no consequence because admittedly, mutation qua the land in question came to be effected in the revenue record at the behest of the purchaser, who was sold land in the year, 1997. Moreover, this Court finds that mutation was attested in the year, 2014 and petition came to be filed in the year, 2020, there is no explanation available on record qua the inordinate delay of six years in filing the contempt petition. Though it has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that factum with respect to attestation of the mutation had come in the knowledge of the petitioner in the year, 2013, but since parties to the lis are litigating for so many years, aforesaid explanation does not appear to be plausible and rejected accordingly.

(3.) Consequently in view the above, this Court finds no merit in the present petition and accordingly same is disposed of. Notices discharged.