RENU SHARMA Vs. HAMARA REALTY PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 16.10.2008 is pending adjudication before the lower Court. Initially an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC had been filed whereby injunction was sought against respondents from alienating the suit land as also against changing the nature thereof without prior permission of the Court. Both the respondents despite service had not made appearance before the Court and thus were proceeded against ex parte . When the suit was adjourned for production of ex parte evidence by the plaintiff, allowing the injunction application of the plaintiff, defendant No. 2 M/s. Hamara Realty Pvt. Ltd. was restrained from alienating the suit land as also from changing the nature thereof without prior permission of the Court.

(2.) FINDING that the said order stood violated and alienation of the suit land was made, an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A and Section 151 CPC was moved by the plaintiff seeking action against the present respondent -defendant No. 2 and three more respondents as are mentioned in application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC (Annexure P12). When the proceedings were going on in the said petition, an application was moved by respondents No. 2 to 4 under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 CPC for striking of names of said applicants/respondents from the array of respondents in pending proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC. Accepting this application of applicants/respondents No. 2 to 4 in proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC their names were removed from the array of respondents.

(3.) IT is averred that order dated 5.2.2011 vide which injunction had been granted was very well within the knowledge of respondents No. 2 to 4 and they deliberately, willfully and intentionally violated the same. It is further claimed that respondents No. 2 to 4 acting in connivance with respondent No. 1 had failed to obey orders of 5.2.2011 rendering them liable to punishment. In short, it is claimed that respondents No. 2 to 4 were acting in connivance with respondent No. 1 and had intentionally violated orders of 5.2.2011.