Alok Singh, J. - (1.) I have gone through the record.
(2.) THE brief facts of the present case are that Respondent No. 3 filed a suit for joint possession of the land on the ground that the land was Joint Hindu Family property and he was entitled to joint possession to the extent of 1/5th share of the land and the learned Trial Court had dismissed the suit. Aggrieved against the same, Respondent No. 3 filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala and the learned Additional District Judge had partly decree the suit. After passing the decree by the learned Additional District Judge, Respondent No. 2 filed an execution application for getting the decree executed. Learned Executing Court ordered that the name of the Respondents be mentioned as co -owner in revenue record and issued a warrant to the revenue authorities for entering the name of Respondent No. 2 as co -owner. Against the order of learned Executing Court, Petitioner filed a Civil Revision No. 2499 of 1995 in this Court and vide order dated 06.07.1995, this Court stayed the operation of impugned order. The allegations of the Petitioner are that despite the stay order, Patwari Halqa, Khanpur and Naib Tehsildar (Respondent Nos. 2 and 1 respectively) sanctioned the mutation in favour of Respondent No. 3 as antedated 30.06.1995.
(3.) IN reply, Respondent No. 3 stated that no contempt of Court was committed by the Respondent.;