CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2020) 11 P&H CK 0117

Ezee Flights Travel vs Gurdas Ram And Another

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 26 November 2020

HON’BLE JUDGES
Nirmaljit Kaur, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Original Coontempt Petition No. 1967 Of 2020

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

18 paragraphs · 345 words

Nirmaljit Kaur, J

The present contempt petition under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been filed for violating the orders dated 16.07.2020

and 07.08.2020 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), SAS Nagar.

Admittedly, the matter is still pending before the trial Court. It is not disputed that the petitioner has a remedy against disobedience or breach of the

injunction order under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, who is tenant is not being allowed to lift his belongings and by not allowing

to do so, he is being forced to pay the rent, even though he wants to vacate the premises and in the application filed under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC,

evidence will have to be recorded, which is not being recorded due to Covid-19 and therefore,it is not an efficacious remedy.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand has pointed out that it was incorrect to say that the respondents have not allowed the

petitioner from collecting his articles. Why should the landlord has any objection if the tenant wants to vacate the premises. In fact, the petitioner has

to pay the rent for the period for which he has been in occupation of the premises.

The argument that he wants to vacate the premises does not appear to be supported by the plaint on record. The suit is filed by the petitioner with the

prayer that the respondents should not interfere in their possession.

These are disputed question of facts. The matter is still pending before the trial Court. The contempt petition cannot be used as an execution petition.

The petitioner in the contempt petition is only seeking punishment for violating the orders dated 16.07.2020 and 07.08.2020, for which he has a remedy

under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC.

In view of the same, the present contempt petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail remedy under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC.

Rule issued against the respondents stands discharged.