- (1.) Heard Sri Shahroze Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.P. Dubey learned counsel for contesting respondents as well as learned State Counsel and perused the record. Facts, in brief, of the present case are that plaintiff-respondent field a suit for permanent injunction, registered as Regular Suit No. 425 of 1996 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Siddarth Nagar. In the said suit, Mohd. Hafeez is plaintiff and Sami Mohammad and Vais Mohammad are defendants. An application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC has been moved by plaintiff for grant of temporary injunction. By order dated 17.8.1996, trial Court granted temporary injunction directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of property in dispute. Thereafter plaintiff move an application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC on the ground that temporary injunction has been violated by the defendants in collusion with the present petitioners, namely, Mohd Rafeeq, Guddu alias Ishtiaq and Meraj, registered as Misc. Case No. 5 of 2001, the trial Court by order dated 1.2.2003, rejected the same with a finding that the order of temporary injunction dated 17.8.1995 was neither served upon the petitioners nor they were parties in the suit.
(2.) Aggrieved by the order dated 1.2.2003 plaintiff filed an appeal before the appellate authority/District Judge, Siddarthnagar, registered as Misc. Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2003 (Abdul Hafiz v. Shami Mohammad and others). By order dated 27.5.2006 (Annexure 6), the appellate authority set-aside the order dated 1.2.2003 and awarded one month further civil imprisonment and also ordered for attached the property of the petitioners. Order dated 27.5.2006 passed by appellate authority has been challenged in the present writ petition by the petitioners (Mohd. Rafeeq, Guddu alias Ishtiaq and Meraj). On 8.12.2006, this Court has passed an interim order, the relevant portion is quoted as under: "Until further orders, the effect and operation of order dated 27.5.2006 passed by the District Judge, Siddarth Nagar in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2003 shall remain stayed."
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In view of the said facts, the main question which has to be adjudicated in the present case is that if the petitioners are not defendants in suit in which a temporary injunction has been granted in favour of the plaintiff than in that circumstances on an application moved under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC for alleged violation/disobedience of the said injunction order they can be punished under the provisions of Order 39 Rule 2A CPC.;