Sale deeds executed in violation of an interim order are null and void. A co-sharer cannot sell their undivided share without partition. Proceedings under Order 39, Rule 2-A are quasi-criminal in nature and meant to maintain the dignity of the court.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed for issuing direction to the respondent No. 2 to attach the properties of the respondent No. 3, including those sold to the respondents Nos. 4, 5 and 6 as described at the foot of the plaint in Suit No. 1586 of 1992 and for quashing the order dated 10-11-1995, passed by respondent No. 2 to the extent that it exempted the property of respondent No. 3 from attachment which has been sold to the respondents Nos. 4, 5 and 6 in contravention of the interim order passed by the trial Court.

( 2 ) FACTS and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner and respondent No. 3 are mother and son and that they had inherited the bhumidari rights in the agricultural land and there was some apprehension of both the sides that the other party may alienate the land in dispute. Suit No. 1586 of 1992 was filed by the petitioner in the trial Court, wherein application for interim relief under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called CPC) was also filed for retraining the defendant-respondent No. 3 to alienate the property. After receiving the notice of the Court, subsequent to passing of the ex parte interim order, respondent No. 3 appeared in the Court on 18-8-1992 and made a similar application that the petitioner be also restrained from alienating any part of the land. On 18-8-1992 the trial Court passed an order restraining the parties in the suit, the petitioner and other sons, including respondent No. 3, from selling the property or any part thereof to any other person till the decision of the suit. The respondent No. 3 alienated his undivided share in the land in dispute on 19-8-1992 and 27-8-1992 executing sale deeds in favour of the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the petitioner plaintiff filed an application to implead respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 in her suit and further prayed to initiate the proceeding under the provisions of Order 39, Rule 2a, C. P. C. As the sale deeds had been executed in contravention of the interim order dated 18-8-1992, the learned Court directed attachment of the property of respondent No. 3 other than those which had been sold to respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 and further respondent No. 3 was directed to be detained in civil imprisonment vide order dated 10-11-1995 for two months. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 10-11-1995 the petitioner preferred an appeal which has been dismissed vide order dated 19-4-1996, hence this petition.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that any action taken in contravention of the order of the Court is a nullity. Therefore, both the Courts below have failed to appreciate that the properties allegedly sold should also have been attached as the sale deeds have been executed in contravention of the interim order passed by the Court. Therefore, the impugned order requires interference.

( 4 ) HOWEVER, learned counsel for private respondents has submitted that once the land had been sold and a 3rd party right had been created and they had been given possession of the land the question of attachment of the property did not arise and no interference is called for.

( 5 ) I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent has made a submission that after execution of the sale deed the purchaser respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 had been put into possession of the land sold to them. In fact, the sale deeds have not been placed on record, but it remains an admitted fact that it was the respondent No. 3 who had merely sold the undivided 1/4th share in the property in dispute, and therefore, it is beyond imagination how the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 in pursuance of the alleged sale deeds could be put to possession if there had been no partition prior to execution of the sales deeds, and no partition had taken place subsequent thereto.

( 7 ) IT is