The main legal point established in the judgment is the consequences of breaching an interim order and the responsibility of the defendant for executing sale deeds despite the order of status quo.

R.D. Kothari, J.

1. In this civil application, the applicant prays for suitable action against the opponents under Order 39 Rule 2(A) of the Code of Civil Procedure. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as plaintiff and defendants hereinafter. Plaintiff alleges breach of interim order by the defendant.

2. The plaintiff has instituted a suit being Special Civil Suit No. 111 of 2011 filed before the 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bhuj. In the plaint, the opponents have inter alia prayed for quashing of the two registered sale deeds i.e. sale deed dated 17.04.2010 and 12.01.2011 by the defendants. Former sale deed executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendants Nos. 5 to 9 and later one by defendants Nos. 5 to 9 in favour of defendants Nos. 10 to 12th suit property consists of different survey numbers. It appears that in all the suit property consists of 8 Hectare 61 Are at the periphery of Bhuj. For consideration of this civil application, detailed reference to pleadings is not necessary. The brief list of dates in chronology would give us somewhat idea about the case of the parties.

DATE -- EVENTS

19/20.12.2012 -- Present Appeal from Order No. 8 of 2012 is filed.

25.06.2013 -- Appeal from Order No. 8 of 2012 ADMITTED.

15.07.2013 -- The defendant applied for NA permission.

01.09.2014 -- NA permission granted by the authority.

11.03.2015 -- The present applicant filed Civil Application No. 3520 of 2015 alleging that the defendants have tried to overreach the court process by obtaining NA permission. The plaintiff has prayed for interim relief however, no order was passed on this civil application. This civil application is pending.

24.03.2015 -- Civil Application No. 4112 of 2015 filed with a prayer that defendants Nos. 10 to 12 be restrained from transferring and developing the suit land.

06.04.2015 -- The order of status-quo came to be passed in Civil Application No. 4112 of 2015.

09.04.2015 -- The learned trial Court rejected the plaint in Special Civil Suit No. 111 of 2011 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

15.04.2015 -- Civil Application No. 4894 of 2015 filed by the defendants for vacating the interim relief granted by this Court on 06.04.2015.

04.06.2015 -- Present Civil Application i.e. Civil Application No. 6510 of 2015 came to be filed. In the present civil application, it is the say of the applicant that despite the order of status quo of this Court the defendants have entered into registered sale transaction and thereby he has violated the order of this Court. Hence, application under Order 39 Rule 2(A) of the Civil Procedure Code."

3. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

4. Learned advocate Shri A.R. Thacker for the plaintiff has submitted written synopsis - besides making oral submissions. His oral submissions were charged with emotions and he has asserted that only view possible in the facts and circumstances of the case is defendants are guilty and hence they should be punished for violation of the order of this Court. In the synopsis submitted by the learned advocate, broadly stated, besides mentioning the facts in chronology, it is pointed out that in the affidavit filed by defendant No. 10, 'subsequent' execution of the sale deed is admitted by him (para 7). This execution of the sale deed is after the order of status quo passed by this Court. With such assertion in the nature of admission in the affidavit - on the face of the order of status quo, the defendants have exposed themselves for the penalty of breach of injunction. The learned advocate also submits that the order of status quo passed by this Court on 06.04.2015 is bi-parte order and the defendants are incorrectly referring the said order as ex-parte order. Such say of the defendants is misleading. Bare perusal of the order would show that the same was passed after hearing the learned advocates for the parties. In the arguments, learned advocate has reiterated the events leading to filing of Civil App