Whether approved for reporting?¹Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

This contempt petition arises out of order dated 24.09.2018 passed in CWP No.2263/2018 (Karnail Singh and others Versus State of H.P. and others). Petitioners allege violation of the aforesaid order, whereby parties were directed to maintain status quo as on date, i.e. 24.09.2018. Petitioners have placed on record copy of a registered sale deed admittedly of the part of land subject matter of CWP No.2263 of 2018, executed on 26.03.2024 by respondent No.1-Rekha Devi in favour of respondent No.4-Sh. Ranjan Sharma S/o Sh. Bakhatawar Singh (respondent No..5).

2. Execution and registration of sale deed has been admitted by the respondents in their respective replies.

2(i). In her defence, respondent No.1 has pleaded that she did not comprehend the true import of status quo order that was directed to be maintained by the parties on 24.09.2018; She waus a widow, aged 72 years. Her son-Sh. Kulbir Singh, aged 42 years, was suffering from severe liver and stomach related diseases, who died on 05.10.2023 after prolonged ailments. For his treatment, respondent No.1 had to take heavy loan amount from her relatives; Her other son is of unsound mind. Sh. Kulbir Singh-the deceased son of respondent No.1 has also left behind his widow and two children to feed with no one in the family employed anywhere. Under compulsion, she executed the sale deed on 26.03.2024 in favour of respondent No.4. That respondent No.1 did not intentionally violate the status quo order, but on account of compelling circumstances and on account of her ignorance in comprehending the status quo order, the sale deed was executed by her.

2(ii). Respondents No.2 and 3 are the registering authorities. Their defence is of their ignorance of the status quo order prior to 03.04.2024. These respondents have pleaded that sale deed was executed & registered on 26.03.2024, which is otherwise an admitted position of the parties, whereas, application bringing to the notice of respondents No.2 & 3 the status oquo order passed in CWP No.2263 of 2018, was moved on 03.04.2024, i.e. after the registration of sale deed. To a queury of the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any document on record, which could lead to an inference about the petitioners having ever brought about the passing of status quo order to the notice of respondents No.2 and 3 prior to their registering the sale deed.

2(iii). Respondents No.4 and 5, who are father and son, have filed a common reply. In terms of the reply, these respondents have denied knowledge of status quo order having been passed in the writ petition. Significantly, respondent No.5 is respondent No.8 in the writ petition. It is not the case of respondent No.5 (father of respondent No.4) that he was not a party to the writ petition and therefore, not aware about the status quo order passed in the said writ petition. The common reply filed by respondents No.4 and 5 interestingly on the affidavit of respondent No.5 pleads that there was no restraint order in the revenue record concerning alienation of the property in question at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed. During hearing of this petition, it was apprised by learned counsel for the parties that CWP No.2263 of 2018 is still pending adjudication and the interim order dated 24.09.2018 ius still holding the field. Therefore, the pleadings in the reply of respondents No.4 & 5 on the affidavit of respondent No.5 about there being no restraint order to their knowledge gets falsified. Be that as it may.

3. At this stage, learned counsel for respondent No.1 expresses unqualified & unconditional apology of respondent No.1 and submits that respondent No.1 shall diligently abide by all the orders passed by the Court from time to time. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.4 and 5 submits that