S KRISTAPPA Vs. K GOPALA CHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner herein is the appellant-fourth respondent, who seeks to assail the order dated 29-7-2004 passed in CMA No.37 of 2003 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur, confirming the order and decretal order dated 16-10-2003 passed in I.A. No.723 of 2001 in O.S. No.247 of 1997 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Hindupur, allowing the application filed under Order 39, Rule 2 (A) read with Section 151 of CPC seeking to punish the respondent therein for violation of the order passed in I.A. No.740 of 1997.

(2.) Originally the suit was filed for specific performance of the agreement of sale. In the main suit, the first respondent-plaintiff filed LA. No.740 of 1997 seeking to restrain the petitioner herein and three others, who are respondents therein from alienating the suit schedule property pending disposal of the main suit. The Trial Court ordered interim injunction restraining the petitioner herein and others who are respondents in I.A. No.740 of 1997 from alienating the plaint schedule property. The respondents therein have colluded together and alienated the suit schedule property by violating the injunction order and executed registered sale deed dated 1-6-2001 in favour of one Mr. M. Krishna Reddy.

(3.) On the other hand, the Respondents 1 to 3 therein filed counter and denied the averments made by the petitioner. It is submitted that the Trial Court closed the petition on 1-8-2000 without prejudice to the contention of the parties and that itself amounts to no temporary injunction is in force as prayed by the petitioner. With regard to other allegation that the respondents in collusion with the fourth respondent alienated the suit property in the name of Mr.Krishnareddy of Beerepalli by violating the injunction order passed by the Court in I.A.No.740 of 1997 is not correct. The other allegation is that they have no respect in the Court is not correct. The petitioner filed Photostat copy of the alleged sale deed. The respondents never executed any sale deed and they are innocents. In the reply notice the respondents therein have mentioned that they have no right over the suit schedule property and prayed to dismiss the petition.