IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 05.03.2026 Sudhir Kumar @ Sudhir Kumar Gupta ..Petitioner Versus S. Ravtesh Inderjit Singh ..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Sunny K. Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent.

SUDEEPTI SHARMA , J .

1. Notice of motion.

2. Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, Advocate, has put in appearance and filed his Power of Attorney on behalf of the respondent.

3. The present contempt petition has been filed for deliberate and intentional disobedience of order dated 10.11.2025 passed by this Court in CR-7687-2025, wherein the following order was passed:-

“1. Prayer in the present Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for issuance of a direction to the learned appellate authority, Jalandhar, to decide the application bearing CM No. 674 of 2025 (Annexure P-4) titled Sudhir Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar (since deceased) through LRs, in Rent Appeal No. 47 of 2025 and CM No. 644 of 2025 (Annexure P-5) titled Sudhir Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar (since deceased) through LRs pending before the learned Executing Court, expeditiously and preferably in a time-bound manner.

2. Heard.

3. In view of the innocuous prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that issuance of notice to the respondent would unnecessarily delay the proceedings; as such, issuance of notice to the respondent is dispensed with.

4. Considering the limited prayer of the petitioner, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to both the Courts below to decide the aforesaid applications expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned appellate authority and the Executing Court for compliance.

5. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.”

4. A perusal of the above shows that the civil revision petition i.e. CR-7687-2025 was disposed of with the direction to both the Courts to decide the applications i.e. CM-674-2025 titled ‘Sudhir Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar (since deceased) through LRs’, in Rent Appeal No. 47 of 2025 and CM No. 644 of 2025 titled ‘Sudhir Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar (since deceased) through LRs’ expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in compliance of order dated 10.11.2025 passed by this Court in CR-7687-2025, the application i.e. CM-644-2025 has already been decided by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, vide its order dated 27.02.2026, still the petitioner has chosen to file the present contempt petition before this Court after the compliance of the order dated 10.11.2025.

6. A bare reading of the order dated 10.11.2025 shows that there is no disobedience on the part of the respondent for which the present contempt petition has been filed. Despite having due knowledge of the legal position that the application has been decided and order dated 10.11.2025 passed by this Court has been complied with on 27.02.2026, the petitioner chose to file present contempt proceedings and continued to pursue the same without any justifiable or tenable grounds of law. Such conduct amounts to gross abuse of the process of law and unnecessarily adds to the burgeoning pendency of cases before this Court.

7. Ordinarily, this Court would have concluded the matter at this stage by dismissing the contempt petition. However, having regard to the underlying intent behind the filing of the present contempt, the manner and mode in which the allegations have been raised against the Judicial Officer, the matter warrants further consideration and elaboration. Such kind of allegation of disobedience of this Court’s order against a sincere, competent and hard working Judicial Officer demands indulgence of this Court. As observed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Nir