By the Court.—Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

2. The present appeal has been filed under Order 43, Rule 1 (r) of the Civil Procedure Code by plaintiff/applicant/appellant (hereinafter referred as appellant) thereby challenging the legality of judgment and order dated 18th December, 2014 passed by Sri S.C. Rana, Additional District Judge, Court No. 10, Aligarh in Regular Miscellaneous Case No. 17 of 2010 (Sri Rajendra Sharma v. Satish Chand Garg and others) whereby the application of the appellant under Order 39, Rule 2 A of the Civil Procedure Code read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, has been dismissed.

3. In support of the present appeal, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the impugned judgement and order are wholly illegal and arbitrary. The learned Judge has failed to construe properly the documents and orders, copies whereof have been filed before him. He further submits that opposite party /respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (hereinafter referred as respondent Nos. 1 to 3) and opposite party No. 2/respondent Nos. 4 and 5 (hereinafter referred as respondent Nos. 4 and 5) in spite of knowledge of injunction order dated 23rd February, 2004, passed in Original Suit No. 848 of 2001 (Rajendra Sharma v. Narendra Sharma and others) and order dated 24th September, 2009 have willfully disobeyed the same and respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had purchased the property in dispute and with the help of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 took forcible and illegal possession thereof. The learned trial Judge has erroneously held that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were not bound by the order dated 23rd February, 2004.

4. Before proceeding further, we would like to notice the facts involved in the present appeal, briefly:

5. The appellant had filed Original Suit No. 848 of 2001 against Narendra Sharma, Smt. Hemlata Sharma, Chetan Sharma, Km.Charu Sharma, Smt.Saroj Kapoor and Brijendra Sharma (not arrayed as respondents in the memo of appeal, hereinafter they will be referred as third party) on 29th November, 2001 seeking the relief of prohibitory injunction, that the third party be restrained from transferring ownership rights or possession of the property in suit surreptitiously to third person till the partition is effected. For the present purpose, it is relevant to mention here that on 23rd February, 2004, in the said suit trial Court granted the interim injunction and restrained the third party not to transfer any specific portion of the suit property to a third person with the liberty that they may sell their shares. Thereafter, litigation went on and the transferees pendentilite were impleaded in Original Suit No. 848 of 2001. Respondent No. 1 filed a suit for partition Original Suit No. 963 of 2005 against the appellant and two others before the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.) Aligarh. In that case, an interim injunction was granted whereby they became entitled to occupy (excluding the dwelling part) parts of the property in dispute. The appellant aggrieved with this order filed FAFO No. 79 of 2006 before this Court but no interim order was granted. Thereafter on 24th September, 2009, appellant moved an application with the request that SSP be directed to ensure compliance of injunction order dated 23.2.2004. This request was accepted on the same day. On 3rd May, 2010, the appellant moved an application under Order 39, Rule 2A C.P.C. whereby it has been stated that respondent Nos. 1 to 5 have willfully deliberately disobeyed injunction orders dated 23.2.2004 and 24.9.2009.

6. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed a written statement against this application and denied the averments made in the application. Their main defence was that the injunction order dated 23.2.2004 was passed prior to purchase of the property and they were not aware of the same.

7. After providing opportunity to both the parties for producing their evidence, the application under Order 39, Rule 2 A of Civil Procedure Code was rejected by the impugned order on the grou