Disobedience of a temporary injunction by alienating disputed property warrants penalties under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC, including property attachment and civil prison. A party with knowledge of the stay order cannot claim the protection of being a bona fide purchaser.

ORDER :

G.S. Ahluwalia, J.

This MCC under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC has been filed complaining breach of temporary injunction order dated 07/11/2023 passed in Second Appeal No. 1384/2023, as well as order dated 14/08/2024, by which temporary injunction order dated 07/11/2023 was continued.

2. It is the case of applicants that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, along with other co-sharers, have filed Second Appeal No. 1384/2023, and on their instance, an interim order to maintain status quo was passed regarding the suit property. In spite of that, Respondent No. 2 - Shivratan executed a sale deed dated 06/12/2023 in favor of Respondent No. 3 - Smt. Neetu in respect of Survey No. 79, area 0.11 hectare, situated in Village Gangepura, Tehsil Lahar, District Bhind. Similarly, by another sale deed dated 06/12/2023, Respondent No. 1 - Harimohan executed a sale deed in favor of Respondent No. 3 in respect of Survey No. 80, area 0.12 hectare, situated in Village Gangepura, Tehsil Lahar, District Bhind.

3. By order dated 08/10/2025, notices were issued to Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and 7. Notices issued to Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 were returned with a common endorsement that in spite of frequent visits by Postman to the houses of noticees, they were not found in the house, and they had gone out of station. Sensing foul play as well as under an impression that looking to the common endorsement, it appears that notices have been deliberately avoided by Respondent Nos. 1 to 5, this Court, by order dated 18/02/2026, issued arrest warrants against Respondent Nos. 1 to 5. On 27/02/2026, Respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 4 appeared before this Court and prayed for cancellation of arrest warrants, and accordingly, on deposit of costs of Rs. 10,000/- each, arrest warrants issued against Respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 4 were recalled, and the case was directed to be listed on 10/03/2026 as it was already directed by this Court by order dated 18/02/2026. On 09/03/2026, Respondent Nos. 3 and 5 were produced by the police in execution of arrest warrants, and accordingly, they were also released on bail on furnishing personal bonds, and accordingly, case was taken up on 10/03/2026. On 10/03/2026, in the first half of the day, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not appear and when this Court expressed its intention that it would again issue arrest warrants, then counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 prayed for some time to enable them to appear before this Court, and accordingly, at the request of counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, case was taken up at 4:30 p.m., and at that time, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 also appeared in person and prayed for time to file reply. Accordingly, the case was adjourned, and today case is heard on merits as Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 have already filed their returns. It is not out of place to mention here that Shri R.P. Singh Advocate who is also appearing for respondents no. 1 and 2, is also a co- sharer in the disputed property and is a co-appellant, therefore, it is clear that respondents no. 1 and 2, are cousin brothers of Shri R.P. Singh, Advocate.

Role of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2:

4. It is submitted by counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that the land which has been sold, i.e., Survey Nos. 79 and 80, was not the subject matter of dispute, and therefore, no case for breach of temporary injunction order is made out. By referring to the decree passed by Trial Court, it is submitted that no decree in respect of the properties mentioned in Schedule 4 of the plaint was passed, and rights of plaintiffs to the extent of 1/3rd share was declared only in respect of properties mentioned in Schedules 2 and 3, and since Survey Nos. 79 and 80 are mentioned in Schedule 4, therefore, properties which have been sold are not the subject matter of dispute.

5 . Per contra, it is submitted by counsel for applicants that in fact, properties mentioned in Schedule 4 merely describe renumbering of the properties. So far as Survey Nos. 79 and 80, as mentioned in Schedule 4, are concerned, it