MEHAR SINGH Vs. LABH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Regular Second Appeal filed by the petitioner was admitted on 30.7.1993 and by an ex parte interim order the respondents were restrained from alienating the property during the pendency of the case . Further, the case of the petitioner is that the respondents in the appeal were served with a notice of the appeal for 28.9.1993 and thereafter their counsel filed power of attorney on 30.9.1993 and inspected the file of the appeal. It is in this backdrop the case of the petitioner is that the respondents herein had knowledge of the ex parte interim restraint order dated 30.7.1993. Petitioner has filed this contempt petition for punishing the respondents on the ground that they sold the property through a registered sale deed dated 22.8.1995 despite the restraint order passed in the appeal.

(2.) In response to the notice the respondents put in appearance and filed reply. Factum of executing the sale deed on 22.8.1995 is not disputed. However, the stand taken is that they had no knowledge of the restraint order passed by this Court on 30.7.1993. Their further stand is that their counsel in the appeal did not inform them of the said order. It is not disputed by counsel for the petitioner that the restraint order dated 30.7.1993 was never communicated to the respondents either by the petitioner or by this Court at any point of time prior to the date of sale.

(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that this petition deserves to be dismissed. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Suresh and others v. Imran Khan and others, 1995 Supp3 SCC 306, the respondents cannot be punished. It was held by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case that in the absence of any evidence showing that the litigant was aware of the prohibitory order, it cannot be concluded that he committed wilful breach of the order or acted contrary to or showed disrespect to the order of the court. Knowledge of an injunction order issued by the Court and served on his lawyer cannot be attributed to the litigant in the absence of any evidence showing that the lawyer had communicated the order to the litigant. In the circumstances, no action can be taken against the respondents. Contempt petition is consequently dismissed and the rule is discharged.