SHAM RATTAN Vs. SH. SUBASH RATTAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE were 5 respondents originally impleaded. However, name of respondent No. 4 Chanan Mal was deleted during the pendency of the contempt petition. It is not necessary to give history of the civil litigation pending between the petitioners and respondents 1 to 3 who are brothers. Suffice it to say that when the matter was brought to the High Court against the orders passed on the miscellaneous application the following directions were given by J.V. Gupta, J. of February 17, 1989 :-

(2.) RESPONDENTS Nos. 1 to 4 had executed general power of attorney in favour of Vijay Kumar respondent No. 5 on September 3, 1991 and March 2, 1988. It was Vijay Kumar who ultimately sold the property in dispute on December 10, 1991 vide sale deed (Annexure P-1). Before that, the present petitioner had sent notice on October 18, 1991 to Vijay Kumar aforesaid informing him about the Court's injunction order referred to above (Notice annexure P-2). An application was also moved before the Sub Registrar, Sirsa (Annexure P-3). At the time of the registration of the sale deed, statement of Vijay Kumar was recorded and he took the responsibility for the consequences as the sale-deed executed by him was in violation of the order passed by the High Court (Copy of the Statement Annexure P-4). It is on these premises that the present contempt petition was filed by the petitioner for taking action against the respondents.

(3.) NO body has appeared on behalf of the petitioner today. I have heard the learned counsel for the respondent contemners and the facts are quite clear with regard to the passing of the order aforesaid by the High Court and factually making sale by respondent No. 5 as attorney of other respondents after passing of the aforesaid order. The only question for consideration is whether it was known to respondent No. 5 that he was affecting sale deed in clear violation of the order passed by the High Court in Civil Revision referred to above. It is the stand of the petitioner that he sent notice in this respect and his statement was recorded by the Sub-Registrar before completion of the sale deed. The stand taken by respondent No. 5 that his signatures on some blank papers were obtained by the Sub-Registrar is nothing, but taking up a false plea. Copy of the statement recorded by the Sub- Registrar has been produced as Annexure P-5. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have not taken up any such stand that Vijay Kumar had no knowledge of the interim directions given by the High. Court in civil revision aforesaid or that Vijay Kumar had sold the land without their knowledge. They are equally liable and responsible for the act of their Attorney.