A party not involved in a suit cannot be liable for contempt of court orders, as those orders do not bind individuals who are not parties to the litigation.

JUDGMENT

Neena Bansal Krishna J.

I.A. 8646/2021 (U/O XXXIX Rule 2A r/w Section 151 of CPC, 1908)

1. An application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the `CPC') has been filed by Plaintiff seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against Defendant No. 2 Sh. Lokesh and Defendant No. 3 Master Mayank through his mother Smt. Kamla and for the attachment of their Suit Property to safeguard the interest and rights of the Plaintiff against the defendants for violation of the "Status Quo" Order dated 05.08.2013.

2. The facts in brief, are that defendant Smt. Murti Devi was married to Sh. Bhagat Singh and from their wedlock, two children namely, Sh. Vijay Pal, son and Smt. Neelam, daughter were born. On the demise of Sh. Bhagat Singh in the year 1980, his wife Smt. Murti Devi remarried Sh. Gajraj, the younger brother of Sh. Bhagat Singh and from their wedlock one daughter, Ms. Jyoti (who is impleaded as Defendant no.1 on the demise of Smt. Murti Devi) was born. Sh. Gajraj also died in the year 1993.

3. Sh. Gajraj (second husband of Smt. Murti Devi) was the owner of 1/4th share of the title land admeasuring 62 Bighas and 11 Biswas comprised in Khasra Nos. 47// 14/2 (2-9), 15 (4-16), 16 (4-16), 17/1 (2-6), 24/2 (1-14), 25 (4-16), 48/11 (4-16), 20 (4-16), 21 (4-16), 22 (4-16), 23/2 (2- 8), 24/2 (2-9), 51/11/ 1 min North (1-6), 4 7/14/1 (2-7), 17/2 (l-19), 24/1 (3- 2), 48/23/1 (2-8), 24/1 (2-1), 52/5/1 (1-17), 249/1 min (0-8), 250/1 (0-10), 421 (0-12) and 422 (1-3) situated in the revenue estate of village Chhawla, Tehsil Najafgarh (Palam), New Delhi and 1/8th share in land measuring 40 bighas and 10 biswas bearing Khasra Nos. 9//25 (4-16), 17/18/2 (3-3), 19 (4- 16), 20 (4-16), 24 (4-16), 18//5 (4-16), 6 (4-8), 14/2 (2-7), 15 (4-16), 20/ 1511 (1-16) situated in the revenue estate of Village Kutubpur, Tehsil Najafgarh, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the `Suit Property').

4. On 22.11.2010, Smt. Murti Devi entered into an Agreement to Sell with the plaintiff in respect of the aforesaid land for a total consideration of Rs. 5,02,00,000/-. Smt. Jyoti, daughter of defendant was a witness to the Agreement to Sell. MoU cum Receipt was executed on the same date, and the plaintiff paid Rs. 3,00,000/- in cash and Rs. 2,00,000/- vide Cheque no. 661493 dated 22.11.2010 as an advance amount. Thereafter, the plaintiff from time to time continued to make payments and in all, a sum of Rs. 2.75 Crores was paid as part of the sale consideration. The defendant had undertaken to obtain the requisite "No Objection Certificate" from the competent authority at her cost and expense and thereafter to execute the Sale Deed, but on one pretext or the other, she failed to execute the Sale Deed. Hence, he filed the present suit for specific performance dated 20.12.2010 in respect of the suit property. A permanent injunction was also sought for restraining defendants, their attorneys and representatives from creating third party interest or to part with the possession of the suit property.

5. The defendant Smt. Murti Devi (since deceased) appeared on receiving the summons of the suit. An ad interim Order was passed on 05.08.2013 in I.A.9251/2013 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC, the relevant part of which reads as under:

"Learned counsel for the defendant enters appearance. He states that the defendant denies the acceptance of the money. However, learned counsel for the defendant states that he has no objection if status quo with regard to possession and title of the shar