1. This petition has been filed to punish the respondents for not obeying the direction given by this Court in O.A.No.875/2006 in C.S.No.318/2002, in the order dated 15.11.2006. An affidavit has been filed in support of the contempt petition by the petitioner who is the 7th defendant in C.S.No.318/2002, which was transferred to the 15th Assistant City Civil Court and re-numbered as O.S.No.12098/2010.

2. In the affidavit, it is stated that the suit was filed by Tmt.Yamuna Mohan for partition of 1/5th share in the suit schedule property. The petitioner's husband is having 1/5th share in the suit property.

3. On 15.11.2006, this Court passed an order directing the party to maintain status quo from 15.11.2006 till 28.11.2006 in A.No.875/2006 filed by the above said Tmt.Yamuna Mohan praying for an order of interim injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 3 in the suit from in any manner dealing with, parting with, alienating or encumbering the property described in the schedule.

4. According to the petitioner, the first respondent who is the second defendant in the suit should not sell the property to third parties as it is a common property and without dividing the same by metes and bounds, the property cannot be sold to anyone. The interim order which has been granted initially till 28.11.2006 has been extended from time to time and the same is still in force. However, in spite of the same, the first respondent/2nd defendant sold his 1/5th undivided share on 25.06.2012 in violation of the orders of this Court and the sale has been registered as Doc.No.744/2012 on the file of the SRO, Sowcarpet. The specific case of the petitioner is that on the date of the disposal of the property on 25.06.2012, there is an order of status quo against the parties to the suit proceedings and in violation of the order, the first respondent/the second defendant sold the property to and in favour of the second respondent. Hence, the sale deed becomes null and void and the respondents are also to be punished for contempt of court.

5. The first respondent/second defendant entered appearance through counsel and filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit which has been filed by the said respondent/defendant, it has been stated that to the best of his knowledge, no notice was received by him in A.No.875/2006 and he entered appearance in the suit on 21.04.2008 only. It is further stated that all the parties to the suit, who have a right and share in the suit property including the petitioner, have dealt with their individual right in the property and therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he alone had violated the interim order of status quo is not legally sustainable.

6. The case of the first respondent/second defendant is that, he is entitled to 1/5th undivided share in the property and the suit was originally filed by the wife of his deceased brother Thiru C.Mohan Vittal for partition and other reliefs. Pending suit, the petitioner who is the 7th defendant filed an application in the year 2006, praying to transpose herself as the second defendant in the suit; to amend the plaint; for an order of injunction restraining the respondents in the application from in any manner dealing with, parting with, alienating and encumbering the suit schedule property. This Court by order dated 15.11.2006 directed the parties to maintain status quo and the interim order was thereafter extended from time to time. It is reiterated by the first respondent/second defendant that to the best of his knowledge that no notice was received by him in A.No.875/2006. It is further stated that the suit has been transferred to the file of the City Civil Court and pending suit, all the parties have negotiated for sale of their respective share in the property including the petitioner herein. After such negotiations on 03.06.2011, all the shareholders excluding the first defendant and the 6th defendant entered into an agreement to sell their respective