Manmohan Sarin, J.-:(ORAL) - (1.) This is plaintiffs application under order 39 Rule 2-A CPC, for proceedings against respondents Nos.1 and 2, who were defendant Nos. 2 and 4 in the suit, and against respondent Nos.3,4 and 5, who have been impleaded in the present application, for disobedience of the injunction granted on 22-6-1994.
(2.) The plaintiff had filed a suit for decree of declaration, claiming that the suit property was a public trust property. In the event, leave under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been refused and the plaint was rejected. However, the plainiff alleges violation of the restraint order passed on 22.6.94. The said order reads as under:- I.A.6386/94 Notice. In the meantime, the respondents are restrained from transferring or alienating or disposing of or creating any third party interest in Khosla Hospital, Shalimar Bagh,West Delhi. Order 39, Rule 3 be complied with. DASTI.
(3.) The plaintiffs case may he briefly slated. The plaintiff claims that the respondent /contemnor Nos.1 and 2 have, after the passing of the order and its communication, transferred the "Khosla Hospital" i.e. property in suit, to contemnor Nos.3,4 and 5 along with the management of Defendant society. The respondent/contemnors 3,4 and 5, who were not parties to the suit arc claimed to have been informed of the order passed by the Court on 25.6.94. Learned counsel submits that respondent Nos.3,4 and 5 would be equally liable for the contempt inasmuch as having been informed of the order, they have aided and abetted the contempt. Learned counsel relies on Vidya Charan Shukal Vs.Tamil Nadu Olympic Association reported at AIR 1991 Madras 323, wherein it was held that if a third party or a stranger aids or abets the violation with notice or knowledge of the order of injunction, he could be guilty of civil contempt.;