Satyabrata Sinha, C.J. - (1.) This contempt application arises out of an order dated 28th September, 1998 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in C.M.A.Nos. 1102 and 1103 of 1994 directing: "Having regard to the above and in particular the choice expressed by the party-in-person, the injunction is modified and restricted to the extent of Flat No. 2 in Block No. B of second floor of the plaint schedule construction. In other words, there will be an injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from, in any way, alienating or giving possession of Flat No. 2 in Block No. B of the second floor of the plaint schedule complex. The defendants are also injuncted not to alienate the undivided interest in the land, on which the rnulti-storeyed complex is raised, relatable to Flat No. 2 in Block No. B of the second floor of the complex pending disposal of the suit. In all other respects, the injunction is vacated. It the party-in-person is so advised, it is always open to him to file an application in the lower Court for any relief that he may choose to seek and if such an application is filed, the same may be disposed of by the lower Court on its own merits and in accordance with law."
(2.) In the contempt petition, the petitioner alleges: "5. The first respondent herein, in collusion with the 2nd respondent herein, deliberately disobeyed the abovementioned judgment of this Honourable Court. He set up a stranger namely Prabhala Anasuya, who is his wife, not one of his co- sharers, as owner of that flat No. 2 in second floor in "B" block with effect from 1-4-1995 in the Municipal Register as disclosed by Exhibit.X-3 marked in the suit and gave possession of that flat to some stranger tenants and has been all the while collecting rents from them through her and the same fact is disclosed by the Advocate-Commissioner's report filed in LA.No. 67 of 2000 in the suit on 18-4-2000. Copy of the said Commissioner's Report is annexed herewith as Annexure-6 which dearly proved that the 1st respondent herein, in collusion with the 2nd respondent herein, deliberately disobeyed the abovementioned injunctions granted by this Honourable Court in the judgment in A.A.O.Nos. 1102 and 1103 of 1994. I filed I.A.No. 765 of 1999 under Order 39 Rule 2(A) of C.P.C. in the Court below to order the defendants 1 and 2 who are the respondents herein to be detained in Civil Prison. Judgment in the suit was pronounced on 28-9-2000 in favour of myself and my wife, holding that we are entitled for execution of registered sale deed by defendants 1 and 2 in respect of Flat No. 2 in B-Block second floor in terms of the High Court order. On 29-9-2000 while applying for certified copy of the judgment my wife applied for certified copy of the order in the said I.A.No. 765 of 1999 and that copy application No. 16022 of 2000 is returned to her on 29-11-2000 with endorsement that "there is no separate order."
(3.) A counter-affidavit affirmed on 5-6-2001 has been filed on behalf of the alleged contemner-respondent No. 1 stating that he had not been served with the enclosures and upon receipt of the same, he would file his additional affidavit. The petitioner however pointed out that all such annexures are served on the respondents. Inspite of that, the respondent has not chosen to file any additional counter- affidavit.;