Contempt is established when a party willfully disobeys a court order, necessitating cancellation of any transactions executed in violation of that order.

ORDER :

KHATIM REZA, J.

1. This miscellaneous application has been filed for initiating contempt against opposite party no. 5 for willful and deliberate disobedience of order dated 08.01.2024 passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 699 of 2023 by this Court.

2. Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 08.01.2024 passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 699 of 2023, an order of status quo with regard to the suit property was passed by this Court. It is submitted that on notice, opposite party no. 5 appeared on 28.03.2024 through his counsel. It is submitted that opposite party no. 5 was fully aware of the order of this Court dated 08.01.2024. Despite the said status quo order, opposite party no. 5 executed a sale deed with regard to the suit land on 21.09.2024 in favour of opposite party nos. 6 and 7 pertaining to Plot No. 472, Khata No. 157 and Plot No. 473, Khata No. 244 which has been mentioned in paragraph no. 1 of the instant application.

3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision in the case of Delhi Development Authority Vs. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd. & Anr. reported in (1996) 4 SCC 622, in which it has referred to Century Flour Mills Limited Vs. S. Suppiyah by Full Bench of Madras High Court, wherein it has been held that where an act is done in violation of an order of stay or injunction, it is the duty of the court as a policy to set the wrong, right and not allow the perpetuation of the wrong doing. The contemner should not be allowed to enjoy or retain the fruits of his contempt. It is further submitted that on the strength of sale deed dated 21.09.2024, the opposite party nos. 6 and 7 took possession of the suit land and also prayed for mandatory direction be given to restore the actual status of the sold land which existed on the date of passing of the order dated 08.01.2024.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 5 has filed his reply to show cause. It is submitted that opposite party no. 5 had no knowledge about the order of status quo passed in M.A. No. 699 of 2023 dated 08.01.2024. In paragraph no. 11 of his show cause, he has specifically stated that he was not at all aware about the passing of the order of status quo in the instant Second Appeal, so he sold a portion of the suit property in good faith and for bonafide reason. It is submitted that if opposite party no. 5 would have got any whisper regarding the order of status quo, he must have taken permission from this Court. The said opposite party no. 5 has not deliberately violated the order of this Court. It is submitted that opposite party no. 5 has no source of income and his three brothers including the husband of the petitioner ousted this opposite party from his ancestral house and they have illegally captured the entire ancestral properties by physical force. It is further submitted that the opposite party has been suffering from various types of ailments including serious cardiac problem which resulted into his surgical operation of heart and the opposite party had no option but to sell a portion of the suit property which is much less than his legal share.

5. In response to the above submissions, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that opposite party no. 5 making false statement with intention to mislead this Court by portraying himself as a victim. The claim of opposite party no. 5 that he had no source of income is entirely incorrect. In fact, opposite party no. 5 is a man of substantial means and is known to have sold the land situated at prime locations in the year 2022, fetching a