Y. BHASKAR RAO, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS contempt petition is filed alleging that the first respondent had wilfully disobeyed the order passed by this court in m. f. a. No. 2883 of 1997, dated 26-8-1997 directing him not to sell or alienate or in any way encumber the schedule property.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are that complainant filed a suit o. s. No. 1223 of 1997 on the file of the. City civil court, Bangalore for recovery of an amount of Rs. 8. 42 lakhs. In the suit he sought for attachment before the judgment of the schedule property, on the ground that the first respondent is trying to sell the schedule property. The first respondent made an averment that he is not intending to sell the schedule property. The trial court rejected the application filed for attachment. Against the said order the complainant filed an appeal m. f. a. No. 2883 of 1997 in this court. This court after satisfying that there is a prima facie case on merits passed an order dated 26-8-1997 directing the first respondent herein not to sell or alienate or in any way encumber the schedule property. Later, the first respondent filed a memo in the appeal stating therein that he has no capacity either to provide a surety or security at that stage, hence the appeal may be allowed and impugned order may be reversed and further to permit him to provide security at a later stage to raise the attachment before the trial court in the interest of justice. In view of the submission made by the first respondent in the memo, the appeal was allowed and the order of the trial court was set aside and this court passed an order that there shall be an order of attachment of the property as prayed for by the complainant. However, the trial court shall thereafter consider any application filed by the first respondent for raising the attachment, if he furnishes adequate security to the satisfaction of the trial court. The appeal was accordingly. allowed on 16-9-1997. Thereafter the first respondent alienated the property under registered sale deed dated 24-11-1997 for a sum of Rs. 24 lakhs in favour of the impleaded respondents.

( 3 ) THEREFORE, the present contempt petition is filed alleging that the first respondent intentionally and wilfully violated the order of this court and also violated the interim order dated 26-8-1997 passed by this court directing the first respondent herein not to sell or alienate or in any way encumber schedule property. Therefore, he may be punished in accordance with law by directing detention in civil prison and also directing attachment of his property and grant such other relief as per law.

( 4 ) AN affidavit is filed by the first respondent denying the allegations regarding the facts of the suit. He stated that this court passed an interim order on 26-8-1997 to the effect that he should not encumber the property if it is not already encumbered. He stated that on that day he brought to the notice of the court that he had agreed to sell the property in favour of M/s. G. Shiva, g. Krishna and g. Nataraj, respondents 2 to 4 and the agreement is dated 16-9-1997. He submitted a memo to this court through his advocate. It is stated in the memo that the appeal may be allowed and the order of the trial court be set aside. The substance of order of this court is that this court directed attachment of the property as prayed for by the complainant for the reasons best known to him and also knowing the weakness of this case he did not pursue to get the property attached as required under order 21, Rule 54 read with order 38, rules 6 and 7 of the CPC. Therefore, in the eye of law there is no attachment, so the first respondent has already entered into an agreement to alienate the property and there is no intention on the part of the first respondent to violate the order of this court. There is no material to indicate that injunction order was served on the first respondent or there is a prohibitory order on his part as required by law after 16-9-199

Click Here to Read the rest of this document