HEMANT GUPTA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioner. The plaintiff claimed to be in possession as tenant @ of Rs. 100/- per month since November, 1992. Subsequently she has purchased the property by way of the sale deed dated 10.6.1996 executed by Lachhmi in favour of the plaintiff and her husband Harpal Singh. On the other hand, the defendant Nos. 2 to 5 assert their physical possession on the basis of the sale-deed dated 10.5.1995.
(2.) THE civil suit was decreed by the trial court restraining the defendant from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 27.10.1999. The said decree was affirmed by the learned Appellate Court as well. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that even though, the decree for injunction was passed against Mohinder Singh and others, still Mohinder Singh had moved number of applications to seek possession from the petitioner. However, it is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is still in actual physical possession of the property and the possession of the property was not taken at any stage by the respondents and he was not dispossessed by the respondents.
(3.) IN view of the fact that the possession of the suit land continued in favour of the plaintiff, I do not find that any case for initiation of contempt proceedings is made out. Even otherwise, in the event of violation of any decree for permanent injunction, the plaintiff has remedy to seek execution of the decree in terms of Order 21, Rule 32 of the CPC. Therefore, the present contempt petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.;