( 1 ) HEARD Mr. Barhate, learned Counsel for the petitioners; Mr. P. F. Patni, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 and Mr. V. H. Dighe, learned AGP for respondent Nos. 5 to 7, respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4, absent, though served.

( 2 ) RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties concerned and heard finally.

( 3 ) THIS petition was taken up for admission before this Court on 9-8-2005 and this Court (Coram : S. C. Dharmadhikari, J.) directed issuance of notice to respondent Nos. 1 to 4 within two weeks and further directed that the trial Court shall not proceed ex parte against defendant Nos. 4 to 10. The defendant Nos. 4 to 10 are the petitioners in the present petition. In other words, respondent Nos. 5 to 10 were not put to notice by this Court.

( 4 ) FEW facts, necessary for disposal of the present petition, are as follows :a) Petitioners are defendant Nos. 4 to 10 in special Civil Suit No. 26 of 1991 filed by the respondent No. 1, who was plaintiff in the said suit. The suit is for partition and possession. The suit properties, which are described in the plaint, are landed properties and house properties. b) The plaintiff had filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with section 39 of Specific Relief Act, for temporary injunction against the defendants. The said application was taken up for orders before the learned Civil judge Senior Division, on 25-1-1991, who by his order, restrained the defendant nos. 4 to 10 from alienating the suit property. The ad interim injunction granted was against defendant Nos. 4 to 10 with show cause notice. A copy of written statement is annexed with the writ petition. c) It is alleged by the plaintiff in an application, exh. 91 that the defendant nos. 4 to 10 have sold out their Vith share out of land Gut No. 277 and 280 on 2-2-2001 by a registered sale deed. These lands are described in plaint schedule. There is no serious dispute regarding alleged sale deed dated 2-2-2001 by defendant Nos. 4 to 10 in favour of the purchasers.

( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel Mr. Barhate, states that Written Statement was filed on 23-4-1991. Mr. Patni, learned Counsel has pointed out that defendant Nos. 4 to 10 have entered their appearance in the suit on 15-2-1991. Despite the service and knowledge of the ad interim injunction order passed by the trial Court on 25-1-1991, defendant Nos. 4 to 10 have executed a sale-deed of the suit property in relation to the land Gut Nos. 277 and 280 situated at village Nagardevale in favour of respondent Nos. 8, 9 and 10. The plaintiff, therefore, on 30-4-2001, filed an application under Order 39, Rule 2-A of Civil Procedure Code at exhibit-91 in Special Civil Suit No. 26/1991 with following prayers : (A) A contempt of Court action be initiated against the defendant Nos. 4 to 10; (B) The defendant Nos. 4 to 10 be ordered to suffer civil imprisonment and other suitable orders be passed to that effect; (C) Such other relief be granted in favour of the plaintiff.

( 6 ) THE present petitioners have filed their reply at Exhibit-129, wherein petitioners have contended that ex parte ad interim injunction below Exhibit-5 was granted on 25-1-1991, however, said order of injunction was not properly served upon them. Moreover, respondent No. 4 is an illiterate lady. Her husband died prior to 15 years. Petitioners have also stated in their reply that defendant no. 4 cannot read and write. The order of injunction was not served on her because she has no any idea about the contents of the said application. Nobody informed in the matter that there was an injunction order against her and her daughters. So defendant Nos. 4 to 10 have no knowledge about ad interim injunction or order passed against them.

( 7 ) THE trial Court by the impugned order allowed the application and held that defendant Nos. 4 to 10 have committed disobedience and breach of the order passed below Exhibit 05, dated 25-1-1991. The trial Court has further attached the interests of defendant Nos.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document