OM PRAKASH AGRAWAL Vs. ASHOK GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this miscellaneous appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the Code'), the Appellant has challenged legality and propriety of the order dated 7-4-2010 passed by the 9th Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Raipur in Civil M.J.C. No. 6/2010, whereby learned Additional District Judge has passed order for civil jail of one month to the Appellant herein for disobedience of the order of the Court passed under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code.

(2.) As per pleadings of the parties, the Appellant herein entered into an agreement for purchasing the suit property from Respondent No. 4 herein Kailash Shukla on 30-11-98, thereafter, Respondent No. 4 entered into agreement with Respondents No. 1 to 3 herein to sell the same property on 2-2-99 and sale deed was executed by Respondent No. 4 in favour of the Appellant on 17-4-2000. Suit for specific performance of contract was filed by Respondents No. 1 to 3 against Respondent No. 4 and the Appellant i.e. the purchaser in which application for temporary injunction was also filed. On 1-5-2000 the trial Court has passed order for not selling the suit property on the basis of undertaking of Defendant No. 2. Reply to the injunction application was filed on behalf of Defendant No. 2 on 8-4-2000, through his Attorney Holder and Advocate. On 9-5-2000 order of status quo relating to the nature of property was passed and on that day counsel for the Appellant herein i.e. Defendant No. 2 informed the Court that the Appellant herein/Defendant No. 2 will not sell the land. Finally, by-party injunction was passed on 24-9-2001 relating to alienation and construction. On 6-8-2002, Respondents No. 1 to 3 herein filed application for breach of injunction and for punishment, against the Appellant herein & Respondent No. 4 herein on the ground that they have started construction and they are changing the nature of property, thus they have violated the orders dated 9-5-2000 & 24-9-2001.

(3.) After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties and adducing evidence, vide order dated 7-4-2010, the trial Court has arrived at a finding that the Appellant or Respondent No. 4 have not violated the order relating to construction, but the Appellant has violated the order dated 9-5-2000 by alienating the land vide sale deed dated 7-7-2001, and has passed order directing civil imprisonment for one month to the Appellant.