A.L.BAHRI, J. - (1.) THERE were 5 respondents originally impleaded. However, name of respondent No. 4 Chanan Mal was deleted during the pendency of the contempt petition. It is not necessary to give history of the civil litigation pending between the petitioners and respondents 1 to 3 who are brothers. Suffice it to say that when the matter was brought to the High Court against the orders passed on the miscellaneous application the following directions were given by J.V. Gupta, J. of February 17, 1989 :- "Para 4. The learned counsel for the parties are agreed that status quo as it existed on January 19, 1988 with respect to the possession of the suit property should continue till the final disposal of the suit and that the defendants will not alienate the suit property during the pendency of the suit. Thus, this revision petition is disposed of accordingly. In order to expedite the hearing of the suit, it is directed that the parties will lead their evidence if any, at their own responsibility and, each party will be given an opportunity for the said purposes." Earlier, it may be stated that the trial Court order was set aside by the lower Appellate Court and finally the High Court disposed of Civil Revision No. 240 of 1988.
(2.) RESPONDENTS Nos. 1 to 4 had executed general power of attorney in favour of Vijay Kumar respondent No. 5 on September 3, 1991 and March 2, 1988. It was Vijay Kumar who ultimately sold the property in dispute on December 10, 1991 vide sale deed (Annexure P-1). Before that, the present petitioner had sent notice on October 18, 1991 to Vijay Kumar aforesaid informing him about the Court's injunction order referred to above (Notice annexure P-2). An application was also moved before the Sub Registrar, Sirsa (Annexure P-3). At the time of the registration of the sale deed, statement of Vijay Kumar was recorded and he took the responsibility for the consequences as the sale-deed executed by him was in violation of the order passed by the High Court (Copy of the Statement Annexure P-4). It is on these premises that the present contempt petition was filed by the petitioner for taking action against the respondents. Respondent No. 5 Vijay Kumar filed reply on his behalf as well as on behalf of respondent Nos. I to 3 This reply is dated April 3, 1992. Subsequently, respondents No. 1 to 3 filed reply dated November 11, 1992 on their own behalf. Respondent No. 5 admitted having sold the land in dispute vide sale deed referred to above. With respect to his statement recorded before the Sub-Registrar, Sirsa, he took up the stand that some blank papers were got signed from him at the time of the registration of sale deed in question. However, no details of any injunction were given to him. In the reply filed by respondents I to 3, a reference has been made to the facts of the civil litigation reiterating their stand as in the civil suit that there had been partition of the family property and sale in dispute was made of their share. It is also asserted that the present petitioners had also earlier sold their share of the property, clarifying their stand (that this was done after partition of the family property having already been taken place. It is further asserted that even if respondent No. 5 as attorney had sold the land, such a transaction would be regulated by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act on the principle of lis pendens). In the last paragraph of the reply, they have tendered unconditional apology for any act or commission on their part as well as on the part of the general attorney respondent No. 5.
(3.) NO body has appeared on behalf of the petitioner today. I have heard the learned counsel for the respondent contemners and the facts are quite clear with regard to the passing of the order aforesaid by the High Court and factually making sale by respondent No. 5 as attorney of other respondents after passing of the aforesaid order. The only question for consideration is whether it was known to respondent No. 5 that he was affecting sale deed in clear violation of the order passed by the High Court in Civil Revision referred to above. It is the stand of the petitioner that he sent notice in this respect and his statement was recorded by the Sub-Registrar before completion of the sale deed. The stand taken by respondent No. 5 that his signatures on some blank papers were obtained by the Sub-Registrar is nothing, but taking up a false plea. Copy of the statement recorded by the Sub- Registrar has been produced as Annexure P-5. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have not taken up any such stand that Vijay Kumar had no knowledge of the interim directions given by the High. Court in civil revision aforesaid or that Vijay Kumar had sold the land without their knowledge. They are equally liable and responsible for the act of their Attorney.;