ORDER :

ARAVIND KUMAR, J.

1. These two contempt petitions or applications are taken up together since order passed in one of the petitions will have direct bearing on the other.

2. We have heard Shri J. V. Japee, learned counsel appearing for the complainant in both the petitions and Shri Dakshesh Mehta, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, Shri N. V. Gandhi, appearing for respondent No.2 and Shri J. A. Adeshra, learned advocate appearing for respondent No.3. We have perused the case papers.

3. These two applications have been pending for the last 11 years 2 months and on account of Registry having been directed by this Court to list all old matters, these two matters have seen the light of the day, namely, they have come on board and as such fervent request made by learned counsel for the complainant for grant of adjournment has been refused on the ground that these matters are pending from last one decade.

4. The facts shorn of unnecessary details can be crystallized as under:-

4.1 The complainant herein filed a suit for specific performance against the first respondent herein in Special Civil Suit No.23 of 2009 (re-numbered as Special Civil Suit No.12 of 2017) which is still pending. An application came to be filed by the complainant in the said suit herein for grant of temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was dismissed by the trial court by order dated 11.01.2010. Appeal against the said order filed an Appeal From Order No. 102 of 2010 was filed which came to be disposed of by order dated 05.05.2010 by the learned Single Judge of this Court on the strength of a statement made by the learned advocates, which also came to be recorded, and we extract the same for the purpose of immediate reference. It reads:

"in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, learned advocate for the appellant requests that the order impugned may be substituted by the terms of settlement".

4.2 The settlement was to the effect that suit schedule property would not be sold by 1st respondent. Alleging violation of this order, Misc. Civil Application No.1735 of 2011 has been filed. In the said contempt proceedings, several orders, directions and injunctions have been passed / issued. Suffice to state that directions, injunctions of vital importance came to be issued by this Court which was adjudicating present the Misc. Civil Application No.1735 of 2011 by order dated 15.09.2011.

4.3 Alleging that this directions issued in Misc. Civil Application No. 1735 of 2011 on 15.09.2011 are violated, the contempt proceedings in Misc. Civil Application No.1021 of 2012 has been filed in which petition / application also several orders, directions and injunctions have been issued. As such, we have taken up these two applications together for consideration and passing a common order.

4.4 At the outset, it requires to be noticed that it is trite law that when this Court is exercising the jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, it would examine as to whether there is any disobedience or willful disobedience of the order which is complained of. If the answer is in the affirmative, necessarily after framing the charge, recording the plea, recording the evidence and thereafter recording the plea of the accused this Court would either punish the accused if found guilty or acquit. Issuing of interim orders or directions, injunctions is alien to these proceedings under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act and beyond the scope of this proceedings. For this proposition judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of V. Senthur and Another versus M. Vijayakumar, IAS, Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and Another reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 846 can be looked up. However, if this Court after having found that there has been willful disobedience of the order and after having convicted the accused for the charge for which he or she has been proceeded with the illegality