HEMANT GUPTA, J. - (1.) The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 29.09.2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Panipat, whereby the appeal filed by one Ram Rishi Sharma against the order passed by the learned trial Court was dismissed being time barred. The learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the present revision petition is not maintainable in view of the fact that the petitioner has not filed appeal before the learned first Appellate Court and, therefore, the petitioner cannot challenge the order passed by the learned first Appellate Court dismissing the appeal filed by one of appellants as beyond the time prescribed.
(2.) However, after going through the order passed by the learned trial Court on 26.9.2002, it transpires that the learned trial Court has issued a show cause to the respondents before the trial Court including the petitioner herein to explain as to on whose orders the street has been paved by committing contempt of court. Such order has been passed on the application filed by respondents No.1 to 4 herein.
(3.) learned trial Court passed a decree on 7.4.1995 whereby the defendant Gram Panchayat was restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property forcibly and except in due course of law. The said decree is executable. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the decree holder was asked to explain as to how the order dated 26.09.2002 could be passed for initiating contempt proceedings when decree for permanent injunction is an executable decree. If the judgment debtors have violated the decree so passed, it is open to the Executing Court to take steps for the execution of the decree but any construction raised in violation of the decree will not make out a case for initiation of proceedings of contempt of Court against the judgment debtors. Thus, initiation of contempt proceedings against the judgment debtors by the learned Executing Court is not justified in law.;