2003 (3) TMI 780 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Attachment of properties sold in contravention of the interim order.
2. Validity of sale deeds executed in violation of the interim court order.
3. Possession rights of co-sharers and transferees.
4. Legal implications of disobeying court orders under Order XXXIX, Rule 2A CPC.
5. Nature and purpose of proceedings under Order XXXIX, Rule 2A CPC.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Attachment of Properties Sold in Contravention of the Interim Order:
The petitioner sought a direction to attach properties of respondent No. 3, including those sold to respondents Nos. 4, 5, and 6, arguing that the sales contravened an interim order. The court found that the trial court had issued an order on 18.8.1992 restraining all parties from selling the property until the suit's decision. Despite this, respondent No. 3 executed sale deeds on 19.8.1992 and 27.8.1992. The court concluded that these sales violated the interim order, rendering the sale deeds null and void. Consequently, the court directed the attachment of the entire disputed property, including the land sold under the contested sale deeds.

2. Validity of Sale Deeds Executed in Violation of the Interim Court Order:
The court held that any action taken in disobedience of a court order is a nullity. The sale deeds executed by respondent No. 3 in favor of respondents Nos. 4 to 6 were deemed null and void as they were executed in violation of the interim order dated 18.8.1992. The court cited precedents, including Mulraj v. Murti Raghunathji Maharaj and Surajit Singh v. Harbans Singh, to affirm that actions taken in contravention of court orders are unenforceable and must be ignored.

3. Possession Rights of Co-sharers and Transferees:
The court addressed the issue of possession rights, stating that a co-sharer can transfer their share, but possession cannot be handed over to the transferee unless the property is partitioned by metes and bounds. Since respondent No. 3 sold his undivided share without a prior partition, respondents Nos. 4 to 6 could not legally take possession. The court referenced legal precedents, including Sidheshwar Mukharjee v. Bhubneshwar Prasad Narain Singh, to support this conclusion.

4. Legal Implications of Disobeying Court Orders under Order XXXIX, Rule 2A CPC:
The court emphasized that disobedience of court orders under Order XXXIX, Rule 2A CPC is punishable. The proceedings under this provision are quasi-criminal in nature, designed to enforce compliance with court orders. The court cited multiple cases, including State of Bihar v. Rani Sana Bati Kumari and Samee Khan v. Bindu Khan, to highlight the punitive nature of these proceedings. The court held that even if the injunction order is later set aside, the disobedience does not get erased, and the violator remains liable for punishment.

5. Nature and Purpose of Proceedings under Order XXXIX, Rule 2A CPC:
The court clarified that proceedings under Order XXXIX, Rule 2A CPC are analogous to contempt of court proceedings but are specific to enforcing interim injunctions. These proceedings aim to uphold the dignity of the court and ensure compliance with its orders. The court referenced judgments from various High Courts and the Supreme Court, including Kochira Krishnan v. Joseph Desouza and Magna v. Rustam, to underline that the purpose of these proceedings is to compel obedience to court orders and remedy any disobedience.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the petition, directing the trial court to attach the entire disputed property and enforce compliance with the interim order dated 18.8.1992. Respondents Nos. 4 to 6 were ordered to pay Rs. 5,000 as costs to the petitioner. The court's decision reinforced the principle that actions taken in violation of court orders are null and void and highlighted the quasi-criminal nature of proceedings under Order XXXIX, Rule 2A CPC.