I.S.TIWANA, J. - (1.) THE prayer of the petitioner for punishing respondent No. 1 under Order 39, Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, for the breach of injunction granted against her on 8th June, 1978 has concurrently been dismissed by the Lower Courts. The operative part of this injunction order reads as follows :- "In view of my above discussion, this application under order 39, Rules 1 and 2 and section 151 CPC succeeds and I hereby pass temporary injunction order in favour of the applicant and against the respondent restraining the respondent from dispossessing the applicants from the suit property otherwise than in due course of law during the pendency of this suit." The case of the petitioner is that he has been dispossessed by the respondent from the house in question on 21st July, 1979. The explanation offered by respondent No. 1, as accepted by the lower courts, is that she entered into possession of the house in question in execution of an order of the Rent Controller passed in her favour on 17th May, 1979. In a nutshell, her case is that she has got the possession of this house strictly in accordance with law with the help of the Court itself.
(2.) THE whole case of the petitioner is to show lack of justification to dispossess him is that firstly he was not a party to the proceedings which resulted in the passing of the order dated 17th May, 1979, by the Rent Controller and rather the respondent had successfully thwarted his being impleaded as a party to that litigation right upto this Court and, secondly, before executing that order, the respondent should have at least sought permission of the Court which had granted the temporary injunction dated 8th June, 1978 against her, before executing the order of the Rent Controller dated 17th May, 1979. I see no merit in this contentions. The mere fact that the petitioner had not succeeded in joining the proceedings launched by the respondent in the Court of the Rent Controller does not in any way render that order as fraudulent or void. The claim of the petitioner that as a matter of fact he was in possession of the house in question and not the Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., as a tenant under the respondent as claimed by her was negatived by the Rent Controller vide his order dated 17th May, 1979. In case, the petitioner was in actual possession of the house in dispute he could well resist the execution of thatorder by filing proper objections before the Rent Controller.
(3.) SO far as the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, I do not think the respondent was under any such obligation to seek permission of the Court passing the order dated 8th June, 1978, before executing the order of the Rent Controller dated 17th May, 1979, passed in her favour. The very order dated 8th June, 1978 entitled the respondent to take possession of the house in question "in due course of law. This latter expression does not mean in any thing more than "procedure established by law-" I cannot think of a better legal or due course than through the law Courts themselves.;