[1.0] Present Miscellaneous Civil Application has been preferred by the applicant herein original appellant original plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as CPC ) complaining about the breach of injunction granted by this Court vide judgment and order dated 29.06.2009 passed in Appeal From Order No.86/2009, by respondent Nos.1 to 5 and 7 herein.

[2.0] Facts leading to the present Miscellaneous Civil Application in nut-shell are as follows:

[2.1] That the applicant herein original plaintiff instituted a suit against respondents for specific performance of Agreement to Sell regarding suit land in question. That in the said suit the applicant original plaintiff submitted the application for interim injunction below Exh.5 restraining the defendants, their agents, servants from transferring and/or alienating the suit land in favour of any other person or to create any charge over the suit land pending the suit. That the learned trial Court by order dated 31.12.2008 dismissed the said application Exh.5 and refused to grant injunction as prayed for.

[2.2] That being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned trial Court below Exh.5 in dismissing the same and refusing to grant the injunction as prayed for, the applicant herein original plaintiff preferred Appeal From Order No.86/2009 with Civil Application No.2559/2009. That in the said Appeal From Order, respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein appeared through their advocate Shri K.V. Shelat. That the said Appeal From Order was fully heard by this Court and after making submissions, the learned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties, more particularly, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the contesting respondent Nos.1 to 5 original defendants stated at the bar that he does not invite any further reasoned order in support of allowing the said Appeal From Order and directing the parties to maintain status-quo i.e. restraining the original defendants from transferring/alienating the suit property in question in any manner whatsoever till final disposal of the suit. Considering the above stand taken by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the contesting respondent Nos.1 to 5 original defendants and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly, when the execution of the Agreement to Sell was not disputed by the defendants original land owners and when they themselves filed the suit for cancellation of Agreement to Sell, this Court was of the opinion that it will be in the fitness of things that respondents herein- original defendants are restrained from transferring/alienating the suit property in question till final disposal of the suit, otherwise the third party rights will be created. In view of the statement of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties recorded hereinabove, this Court did not pass any further reasoned order. Considering the above, this Court by judgment and order dated 29.06.2009 allowed the aforesaid Appeal From Order No.86/2009 with Civil Application No.2559/2009 and quashed and set aside the order dated 31.12.2008 passed by the learned trial Court below Exh.5 in Special Civil Suit No.492/2007 and allowed the Exh.5 application submitted by the applicant herein original plaintiff and consequently granted the injunction as prayed for below Exh.5 and restrained the defendants from transferring/alienating the suit land in question in any manner whatsoever till the final disposal of the suit.

[2.3] It appears that despite the above injunction granted by this Court vide judgment and order dated 29.06.2009 passed in Appeal From Order No.86 of 2009 and allowing the application Exh.5 restraining the defendants, their servants, agents from transferring/alienating the suit land in question in any manner whatsoever till the final disposal of the suit, respondents herein original defendants executed the Agre