RAJENDRA NATH MITTAL, J. - (1.)THIS contempt petition has been filed under sections 11 and 1 of the Contempt of Courts Act, on the following facts.
(2.)THE respondent is the owner of agricultural land, Rectangle No. 49, Killa No. 15 (8 Kanals) and Rectangle No. 48, Killa No. 1013 (1 Kanal 10 Marlas), situated in the revenue estate of village Charsentli, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad. He entered into an agreement with the petitioner on 27th April 1981, for ellir.g 5 kanals 12 marlas out of the former number and whole of the latter number for a consideration of Rs. 7 1,000/to the petitioner A sum of Rs. 30,000/- was paid by the petitioner to him on that date and it was agreed that the remaining amount of Rs. 41,000/- would be paid at the time of registration of the sale-deed. Thereafter, it is alleged that the parties agreed that instead of sale of Rectangle No. 48, Killa No. 10/3, the respondent would sell I kanal 10 Marlas of agricultural land more out of Rectangle No. 49, Killa No. 15. Consequently, a sale deed was executed by the respondent in favour of the petitioner for the land, measuring 7 kanals 2 marlas out of Rectangle No. 49. killa No. 15. and was presented for registration before the Sub Registrar. The parties appeared before the Sub-Registrar on 10th June, 198 1, when the, Sub-Registrar required the respondent to produce the income-tax clearance certificate. Thereafter, he did not appear.
The case of the petitioner further is that the respondent filed a suit against the petitioner for permanent injunction alleging that the sale-deed had been executed by the fraud and. therefore, he should be restrained from getting the sale-deed registered. In that suit, he obtained ad-interim injunction against the petitioner which was later on got vacated by him. The respondent filed an appeal against that order to the District Judge, Faridabad, who accepted the same and granted ad interim injunction in favour of the respondent. The petitioner came up in revision petition to this court wherein a compromise was arrived at between the parties and it was agreed that the petitioner would purchase the same numbers which were agreed upon by the respondent to sell him originally and the sale-deed before the Sub-Registrar would be got rectified and registered accordingly. It is alleged that the respondent neither appeared before the Sub-Registrar for rectification or the sale-deed nor forgetting the same registered. Thus, he was guilty of contempt of the Court.

(3.)THE petition has been contested by the respondent who, inter alia pleaded that his son Prem Chand, Mehar Chand, and Banwari Lal and wife Brahma Devi filed two suits against him and the petitioner wherein they sought injunction that he be restrained from alienating the property to the petitioner or any other person and in that suit an ad interim injunction had been issued against him not to alienate the property till decision of the suit. It is further stated by the respondent that if the injunction order is vacated, he has no objection in getting the sale-deed rectified and registred in accordance with the terms of the compromise effected in the, High Court.