MANOJ Vs. BARFI DEVI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CCP (O) 69/2012.

(2.) IN I.A. No. 8950/2008, interim orders under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC were passed on 01.08.2008. The petitioner had sought restraint upon the respondents from parting with possession and creating third party interest in respect of the properties mentioned in Schedule "A" of the Probate Petition. Construction was sought to be raised by the respondents, in particular by respondent No. 2 Om Prakash, therefore, another I.A. 5488/2010 under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC was filed by the plaintiff in which the following restraint order came to be passed on 28.04.2010:

(3.) THIS Court notices that the order of 01.08.2008, restraining the respondents from parting with possession or creating third party rights in respect of properties mentioned in Schedule "A" of the Probate Petition was made absolute on 23.07.2012. Respondent No. 2, one of the alleged contemnors, has been represented by Mr. N.S. Dalal and otherwise, the respondents have been represented through counsel, namely Mr. Salender Singh, Mr. N.S. Dalal, Pradeep Kumar Gupta, Mr. Omvir Dahiya (proxy counsel), Mr. H.L. Verma (proxy counsel) and Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocates. The service report shows that the interim injunction order dated 01.08.2008 was served upon respondent No. 3 on 19.09.2008. On 25.11.2008, when Mr. N.S. Dalal and Mr. Pradeep Kumar Gupta had appeared for respondent No. 3 and they were granted four weeks' time to file a response. The response was never filed. As noted above, the order was made absolute on 23.07.2012. Clearly, this constitutes due notice of the orders passed in the application. Simultaneously, respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4, who were objectors to the probate petition were proceeding with the recording of the evidence before the Joint Registrar on 18.09.2008 when PW -1, Mr. Manoj was to be cross - examined. The proceedings could not be completed because of non - availability of the main counsel. Indeed, the learned Joint Registrar recorded as under: