BALWINDER KUMAR Vs. RAJINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 15-1-2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib whereby the appellant has been held guilty in proceedings under Order 39, Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "the Code") for violating the order passed by him on 5-2-1993, and has been ordered to be detained in civil prison for a period of three months.

(2.) One Kewal Krishan, predecessor-in- interest of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed an appeal before the District Judge against the judgment and decree dated 7-12-1992 passed by the trial Court. In the appeal, he also moved an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code. While admitting the appeal on 5-2- 1993. the appellate Court passed an interim Against order of J. S. Klar, Addl. District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, D/- 15-1-2005. order restraining the respondents in the appeal, from alienating the suit land till further orders. In the meantime, Kewal Krishan aforesaid died and his legal representatives i.e. respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein moved an application before the Additional District Judge in the pending appeal, under Order 39, Rule 2-A of the Code complaining that despite the injunction' order passed by the Court, the petitioner exectited sale deed dated 30-5-1997 with regard to 10 Bighas and 10 Biswas of land in favour of respondent Nos. 10 to 13. It was averred that the interim order dated 5-2-1993 which was ordered to continue till further orders, was neither modified nor varied nor vacated at any time and that the respondents therein had full knowledge of the injunction order. It was further averred that even the vendees i.e. respondent Nos. 10 to 13 were also aware of the injunction order dated 5-2-1993 and in spite of that they became party to the sale deed. The allegations made in the application were controverted by the petitioner and respondent Nos. 10 to 13, by filing separate replies. The Additional District Judge, after framing issues and appraising evidence led on record, absolved the other respondents but held the petitioner guilty of flagrant disobedience of the order of the Court and accordingly, ordered the petitioner to be detained in civil prison for three months.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there had been no wilful disobedience on the part of the appellant and further the appellant had no knowledge of the stay order dated 5-2-1993 as the advocate was also engaged by the father of the appellant.