VINOD S/O BABARAO RODE Vs. DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioners impugn an order passed by the trial court on 15.10.2010, allowing an application filed by the respondent no. 2plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure and directing that the petitioners be sent to civil prison for a period of one month for breach of injunction order dated 21.01.2002. The petitioners also challenge the judgment passed by the District Judge, Amravati. on 2.3.2012, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners against the impugned order dated 15.10.2010.

(2.) One Atmaram Bahadursingh Panjabi was the original plaintiff.

(3.) The respondent no.2 is the legal heir of Atmaram. In the year 2001, Atmaram filed a civil suit against the petitioners for declaration, injunction and cancellation of the sale deed. An application was filed by Atmaram under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for temporary injunction restraining the petitioners from alienating the suit property or creating any third party interest therein during the pendency of the suit. The trial court granted an injunction in favour of Atmaram on 21.1.2002. Atmaram expired during the pendency of the proceedings in the year 2003 and the respondent no.2, his legal heir, was brought on record. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners sold the suit property to a third party by a registered sale deed dated 22.10.2007.