HIMA KOHLI, J.

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner (plaintiff No.1 in the suit proceedings) under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC and Section 151 CPC against her brother, respondent No.1 (defendant No.2 in the suit) and her first cousin, respondent No.2 (impleaded in the suit as a Karta of the defendant No.4/Ram Chander Nath HUF), alleging wilful breach of the orders dated 27.02.2013, 29.5.2015 and 24.8.2015, passed in CS(OS) No. 663/2011.

2. In the first instance, having regard to the twists and turns of the case where rounds of appeals have arisen out of the suit that is at the trial stage, a narrative of the relevant facts and the orders passed from time to time, is considered necessary. In March, 2011, the petitioner along with her sister (plaintiff No.2), instituted a suit for partition, possession, rendition of accounts, permanent and mandatory injunction in the High Court claiming 1/4th share each in the assets of M/s Rajinder Nath and Company, HUF (defendant No. 1 in the suit), 1/8th share each in the joint/common, undivided assets of defendant No.1/HUF and defendant No. 4/M/s Ram Chander Nath HUF and 1/4th share each in the undivided estate of their deceased parents. In the said suit, respondent No.1 herein, Mr. Narendra Nath was arrayed as defendant No.2 and as the Karta of the defendant No.1/M/s Rajinder Nath HUF and the respondent No.2 herein, Mr. Ashok Kumar Nath was arrayed as the Karta of the defendant No.4, M/s Ram Chander Nath HUF. Both the plaintiffs, defendant No.2 and defendant No.3 in the suit, are siblings, being the children of Late Rajinder Nath whereas respondent No.2 is the son of Late Ram Chander Nath who was the real brother of Late Rajinder Nath. Accompanying the said suit, was an application filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC, (I.A. 4350/2011) praying inter alia for stay.

3. Summons were issued in the suit and the stay application on 18.3.2011. On 13.5.2011, appearance was entered on behalf of the respondent No.1/defendant No.2 and his counsel had stated that the defendant No.1/HUF was not in existence since December, 2009. Appearance was also entered on behalf of the defendant No.3 and the defendant No.4/HUF. An application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was filed by the respondent No.1 herein (defendant No.2), registered as I.A. 7915/2011 for rejection of the plaint. Another application under the same provision was filed by the respondent No.2 herein as the Karta of the defendant No. 4/HUF, registered as I.A. 7857/2011. On the said date, the Court had observed on the stay application filed by the plaintiffs, that “Needless to say that during the interregnum, the lis pendens will apply”. Subsequently on 28.2.2012, a fresh application was filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC (I.A. 10343/2012), seeking an injunction order against the defendants on the ground that some of the immovable properties mentioned in the suit had been wrongly mutated in the names of some of the defendants. While disposing of the said application on 28.05.2012, it was directed that the documents filed along with the said application would be considered at the time of hearing the earlier stay application.

4. Subsequently, arguments were addressed on the two applications filed by the defendant No.2 and defendant No.4/HUF, both under Order VII Rule 11 CPC (IAs No.7915/2011 and 7857/2011), seeking rejection of the plaint on several counts, including on the ground that the same is barred by law, barred by limitation and is deficient in court fees. By a detailed order passed on 11.2.2013, IA 7915/2011 filed by the defendant No.2 (respondent No.1 herein) was dismissed in entirety and IA No.7857/2011 filed by the respondent No.2 as the Karta of the defendant No.4/HUF, was partly dismissed, while leaving open the remaining issues of non-disclosure of cause of action and the plea of misjoinder of the parties raised