(1.) The appellant had obtained an injunction order in his favour from the learned Additional District Judge,, Bhiwani on 10.10.1996. The operative part of the order is as follows:-
(2.) It is alleged that after the order, respondent Nos. 1 gifted the property to the sons of respondents 2 and 3. The appellant filed an application for taking steps against respondent No. 1 under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code). The application was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 27.10.1998. The relevant part of the order reads as under:-
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant argued that when the injunction was there, respondent No. 1 could not have gifted the land and by gifting the land, he has committed breach of the injunction order. It is not known as to why the appellant remained satisfied by the partial injunction granted by the learned Additional District Judge. The word "decreeing" admittedly means suffering a decree. Therefore, the injunction was restricted only to restraining respondent No. 1 from suffering a decree. Therefore, there appears to be no ground to interfere with the finding of the learned Additional District Judge mentioned above.