Common Order:

1. Application No.517 of 2004 is filed by the applicants/plaintiff invoking Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure for attaching the suit property described in the suit schedule and also order detention of the respondent/defendant in civil prison for disobeying the order of injunction granted by this court in O.A.No.636 and 637 of 1995 dated 22. 1996.

2. Application No.3738 of 2008 is filed praying to consider and dispose of Application No.517 of 2004 in C.S.No.1843 of 1994 before ever the learned Master proceeds with the Trial of C.S.No.1843 of 1994.

3. Application No.3741 of 2004 is filed seeking a direction that the respondent/defendant shall not be heard in the main suit in C.S.No.1843 of 1994 until the offending, pendente lite sale executed by her in violation of the order of injunction passed by this court on 22. 1996 is cancelled in accordance with law.

4. In the suit in C.S.No.1843 of 1994 instituted by the applicants seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale between the applicants and the respondent, this court was pleased to pass an order in O.A.No.636 of 1995 and 637 of 1995 on 22. 1996 as follows:-

"That the defendant/respondent in both the applications be and is hereby directed not to alienate the property more fully set out in the schedule hereto during the pendency of the suit, and ensure any construction that may be put up by the defendant is in accordance with law, so as to avoid exposing the plaintiff in the event of his success in the suit from having to face the demands for demolition of the superstructure which has not been put up in accordance with law."

The respondent chose not to prefer any appeal against such order. Thus, the said order has reached finality.

5. It is contended by the applicants that they applied for encumbrance certificate for the suit property immediately after some strangers, who came to the suit property in the last week of December 2003, claimed to have purchased the same and found to their shock and surprise that the respondent had sold the suit property to one T.A.Dhakshayini under a sale deed dated 7. 2003 registered as document No.1567 of 2003 in the office of the Sub Registrar, T.Nagar. Contending that the respondent has wilfully flouted the order of injunction passed by this court, the applicants sought for punishment of the respondent for disobedience and remand the respondent to civil prison as provided under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The property of the respondent is also liable to be attached, it is contended in Application No.517 of 2004.

.6. Honourable Mr.Justice V.Ramasubramanian took up Application No.517 of 2004 and by order dated 21. 2008, expressed his view that the said Application could be taken up after the evidence was recorded on both sides and directed the office to list the suit before the Master for recording evidence and post the suit after recording evidence along with the said Application seeking to punish the respondent for contempt. Honourable Mr.Justice S.Tamilvanan took up the very same Application No.517 of 2004 on 17. 2008 and expressed his view that the learned Additional Master should proceed with the exercise of recording evidence as directed by Honourable Mr.Justice V.Ramasubramanian in the aforesaid order dated 21. 2008.

7. In the aforesaid circumstances, the applicants chose to file Application No.3738 of 2008 praying to consider and dispose of Application No.517 of 2004 seeking to punish the respondent for contempt before ever the learned Master proceeds with the trial of the case in C.S.No.1843 of 1994. The applicants also filed a separate application in Application No.3741 of 2008 seeking a direction that the respondent shall not be heard in the main suit until the offending pendente lite sale executed by her disobeying the orders of injunction passed by this court is cancelled in accordance with law.

8. In none of the applications, the respondent chose to fi