The need for prior permission from the court for any further transfer or alienation of the property, as established by the court's interpretation of the ex parte orders.

( 1 ) THIS CONTEMPT PETITION FILED BY THE ORIGINAL plaintiff IS BASED ON THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE EX parte ORDER OF STATUS QUO OF THIS COURT DATED 2nd APRIL, 2002 WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE BY his ORDER DATED 25th AUGUST, 2003 PASSED AFTER HEARING both SIDES AND WHICH ORDER IS NOW PENDING IN APPEAL before THE DIVISION BENCH. THE SUIT WAS INTER ALIA FOR partition AND AVERRED THAT THE TWO BROTHERS OF THE plaintiff (WHO IS THE MARRIED SISTER) I. E. DEFENDANT NO. 1 SHRI SHAM SUNDER GULATI, DEFENDANT NO. 3 SHRI RAJ KUMAR gulati AND DEFENDANT NO. 4 SHRI CHINTU GULATI WHO ARE legal REPRESENTATIVES OF LATE PRAKASH GULATI, ANOTHER brother OF THE PLAINTIFF HAD SOLD THE SUIT PROPERTY AT 31, BUNGLOW ROAD, KAMLA NAGAR, DELHI TO DEFENDANT NO. 7- smt. NEELAM SABLOK IN VIOLATION OF THE PLAINTIFF s rights.

( 2 ) IT IS CLAIMED THAT THE SUIT PROPERTY HAS BEEN demolished VIOLATING THE ORDER OF STATUS QUO. THE demolition IS AVERRED TO BE WITHOUT ANY VALID SANCTION and PERMISSION. IT IS ALSO STATED THAT IF RESPONDENTS are ALLOWED TO CONTINUE REBUILDING OF SUIT PREMISES IT would RESULT IN UNDUE HARASSMENT AND IRREPARABLE INJURY to THE PLAINTIFF.

( 3 ) THE RESPONDENTS/defendants HAVE DENIED THE commission OF ANY CONTEMPT AND INTER ALIA PLEADED THAT the PETITIONER IS A MARRIED DAUGHTER WHO HAD EXECUTED along WITH THE OTHER SISTERS AN AFFIDAVIT ON 18th AUGUST, 1988 TO PERMIT MUTATION OF PROPERTY IN FAVOUR OF HER brothers PURSUANT TO A REGISTERED WILL MADE BY THE MOTHER and FATHER OF THE PETITIONER ON 16th APRIL, 1981, AND IS now FOR ULTERIOR MOTIVES SEEKING TO STAKE AN UNLAWFUL AND belated CLAIM IN RESPECT OF THE SUIT PROPERTY. IT WAS also ALLEGED THAT THE FRIVOLOUS CLAIMS WERE RAISED 20 years AFTER THE FATHER s DEATH IN 1982 AND 10 YEARS AFTER the MOTHER s DEATH IN 1992. THE DEFENDANT NO. 7/respondent NO. 4 WAS SOLD THIS PROPERTY BY THE BROTHERS of THE PLAINTIFF ON 11th OCTOBER, 2000 BY A REGISTERED sale DEED AND EVEN THE PLAINT AVERRED THAT THE DEFENDANT no. 7 HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED THE PROPERTY.

( 4 ) IT IS RELEVANT TO EXTRACT THE RELEVANT PORTIONS of THE ORDER DATED 2nd APRIL, 2002 AND 25th AUGUST, 2003 which ARE SAID TO BE VIOLATED AND READ AS UNDER: order DATED 02-04-2002

". . . . . . . . . . . I ACCORDINGLY DIRECT THE PARTIES TO maintain THE STATUS QUO IN RESPECT OF THE TITLE AND possession OF THE PREMISES AS OF TODAY AND THE PARTIES are RESTRAINED FROM ALIENATING, SELLING, TRANSFERRING OR creating THIRD PARTY INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY NO. 6909/31, BUNGLOW ROAD, KAMLA NAGAR, DELHI TILL THE NEXT date. THE PROVISION OF ORDER 39 RULE 3 CPC BE COMPLIED with. "order DATED 25-8-2003

". . . . . . . THE QUESTION WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF IS IN possession OF ANY PORTION OF THE PROPERTY OR NOT IS, therefore, CAN BE DECIDED ONLY AFTER EVIDENCE. THE affidavit WHICH HAVE BEEN RELIED UPON ON BEHALF OF THE defendant HAVE BEEN STRONGLY DISPUTED ON BEHALF OF THE plaintiff AND IT IS ALLEGED THAT THEY ARE FORGED AND fabricated DOCUMENTS. ". . . . . .

"it IS THE CASE OF THE DEFENDANT THAT THE PROPERTY HAS been TRANSFERRED IN 2000 TO DEFENDANT NO. 7, WHO IS IN possession OF THE PREMISES. THE EX-PARTE AD INTERIM injunction ORDER WHICH WAS GRANTED ON 02. 4. 2004 SIMPLY required THE PARTIES TO MAINTAIN STATUS QUO QUA THE possession AND THE TITLE AND RESTRAINED THE DEFENDANTS from FURTHER ALIENATION OR TRANSFER OR CREATING OF THIRD party INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY. IF DEFENDANT NO. 7 claimed THE TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY BY VIRTUE OF SALE deed EXECUTED BY DEFENDANT NO. 1 AND HIS BROTHER PRAKASH chand GULATI, IT WOULD NOT BE AFFECTED BY THAT ORDER. BUT ANY FURTHER TRANSFER, ALIENATION OF THE TITLE OR parting WITH POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY WILL NOT BE permissible. COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED HAS BEEN placed ON RECORD. EXCEPT THE PLAINTIFF, ALL OTHER HEIRS of LATE MANGAL SAIN GULATI WHO HAVE BEEN ARRAYED AS defendants NO. 1 TO 6 HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE WILL AND the SALE OF THE PROPERTY. ". . . . . . .

". . . . . . IN THE TOTALITY OF FAC