G.P. MITTAL, J.

1. This application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the Plaintiff/Applicant for punishing Respondents Ms. Joyce Makhani, Mr. Vinay Chhabra and Mr. Jerry Makhani for violating the status quo order dated 11.05.2010 and for attachment of their property.

2. The suit C.S. (OS) 900 of 2010 for declaration, pre-emption, permanent injunction, partition and possession was filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendants with the averments that Late Mohinder Kaur, mother of Dr. Maninder Pal Singh (Defendant no. 1), Ms. Inderjeet Kaur (Defendant no. 2) and Late Dr. J.S. Makhani was the owner of Property No. 9/21, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi by virtue of a will dated 08.12.1986. Defendants no. 1, 2 and Late Dr. J.S. Makhani thus, became the co-owners of undivided 1/3rd each share in the said property upon the death of their mother.

3. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was a Roman Catholic by birth and religion and Defendant no. 1 before his marriage to the Plaintiff was a Sikh by religion. It is averred that Defendant no. 1 at the time of marriage gave a solemn declaration before the Archbishop of Goa declaring his unconditional consent and permission to baptise the children if born to the couple, thus, making himself bound by the Concordata and provisions of Portuguese Civil Code.

4. The Plaintiff got married to Defendant no. 1 on 30.10.1982. She was of Goan origin and the marriage between the Plaintiff and Defendant no.1 was solemnised in the Basilica (Church) of St. Francis Xavier in old Goa according to Christian rites and ceremonies. The marriage was also registered under the Portuguese Law applicable in Goa by following the law established by Portuguese Civil Code. Two children were born out of the wedlock of the parties on 16.07.1983 and 10.12.1986.

5. The marriage between the Plaintiff and Defendant no.1 was dissolved by a decree of divorce and annulment of marriage dated 21.09.2004 under Article 4(4) of the Portuguese Family Law of Divorce. It is averred that as per Article 1098 of the Portuguese Civil Code, the Plaintiff was entitled to half share in the assets of her husband and therefore, she became entitled to half undivided share from 1/3rd undivided share belonging to Defendant no. 1 in the earlier said property.

6. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendants were contemplating to sell the suit property and Defendants no. 1 and 2 had also entered into an Agreement to Sell with Defendants no. 8 and 9 for the same wherein they agreed to sell their 2/3rd share in the suit property to Defendants no. 8 and 9. Plaintiff also came to know that Defendants no. 3 to 7 who are the legal heirs being the widow and children of Late Dr. J.S. Makhani also wanted to sell their undivided share in the suit property to a stranger. Thus, the Plaintiff sought a decree of declaration that she was entitled to 1/6th share in the suit property and a decree of pre-emption directing that Defendants no. 1 to 7 sell their undivided shares to the Plaintiff as per their own valuation in the Agreement to Sell after adjusting the Plaintiff’s share therein. It is averred that by an order dated 11.05.2010 (in I.A. No. 6137 of 2010), this Court had directed all the Defendants to maintain status quo with respect to the title and possession of the suit property till the next date of hearing i.e. 30.07.2010. It is stated that the said order is still in force.

7. In the instant application, the Plaintiff has alleged that although the order dated 11.05.2010 was communicated to the Respondents by a letter of even date. Respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 (i.e. Defendants no. 3, 9 and 6) respectively received the letter dated 11.05.2010 along with the paper book in the month of May itself. The copies of the IAs. 6137-6139 of 2010 along with supporting Affidavits, plaint and documents were also sent to the Defendants by registered post on 16.06.2010. The grievance of t