The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of upholding court orders and the rule of law, especially in cases of deliberate violation of injunction orders.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. In Regular Civil Suit No.140/2012 a suit for partition and separate possession, filed by the present respondent no.1, for 1/5th share in the suit property, claiming to be the co-owner of the same, on account of the property being purchased on 7/6/1966 by the petitioner's maternal uncle Narayan Laxman and therefore was a joint family property, the learned Trial Court, on an application for grant of temporary injunction, granted ad interim relief on 22/3/2012, restraining the defendant no.1 (the present petitioner) from alienating or creating third party interest in the suit properties until further orders.

3. On 11/4/2012, the petitioner (defendant no.1) executed and registered two sale-deeds, one in respect of 2.42 hectares (northern side) of Gat No.20 in favour of Shaikh Aslam Gulam Rasul and Abdul Rahim Gulam Rasul for consideration of Rs.3,39,000/- and another in respect of 2.21 acres of land (southern side) of Gat No.20 in favour of Shaikh Ansar Shaikh Kasam and Gulam Rasul Shaikh Chand for a consideration of Rs.3,09,000/-.

4. The respondent no.1, filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of C.P.C., claiming the violation of the order of ad interim injunction dated 22/3/2012 by the present petitioner (defendant no.1) and prayed for detention of petitioner (defendant no.1) in civil prison for three months.

5. The petitioner (defendant no.1) filed his say on the application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of C.P.C. Thereafter, as the Counsel for petitioner (defendant no.1) was absent the learned Trial Court by treating his say on the application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of C.P.C., as his arguments, by an order dated 31/8/2017 held that the summons intimating the order of the Court in respect of ad interim injunction was served upon the petitioner (defendant no.1) on 30/3/2012 and so also the respondent no.1 (plaintiff) had also communicated the injunction order by way of R.P.A.D., dated 24/3/2012 and therefore the petitioner had knowledge of the same, in spite of which, the petitioner executed and registered two sale-deeds on 11/6/2012 in respect of the suit property and thus finding violation of the order of ad interim injunction, directed the defendant no.1, petitioner to be detained in civil prison for a term of three months.

6. Against this order dated 31/8/2017 an appeal has been preferred by the present petitioner before the District Judge, Washim bearing Misc. Civil Appeal No.17/2017, in which by an order dated 4/10/2017, the order directing detention of the petitioner in civil prison for a period of three months dated 31/8/2017 has been stayed during the pendency of the appeal. The legality of efficacy of the order as passed on the application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of C.P.C. is not under challenge in the present petition, the same being subject matter of Misc. Civil Appeal No.17/2017 and therefore the present petition is restricted to the efficacy and legality of the impugned order and the discretion as exercised by the learned Trial Court, in passing the same.

7. On 16/7/2012, the respondent no.1/plaintiff filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 11 read with Section 151 of C.P.C., for striking of the defence of the petitioner/defendant no.1 for having breached the order of injunction, which came to be allowed by an order dated 31/8/2017, whereby the defence of the petitioner/defendant no.1 is struck off. It is against this order, striking off the defence of the petitioner/defendant no.1 that the present petition has been filed.

8. Mr. C.A. Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits, that the suit as filed by the respondent no.1, was not maintainable for the reason, that the property was purchased by the maternal uncles of the petitioner in the name of the petitioner by a deed of sale dated 7/6/1966, for which he invites my attention to a typed copy thereof placed on record at Annexure-10. He therefore contends that the respondent no.1/plainti