Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. - (1.) THIS contempt petition has been filed under Sec. 12 read with Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 in which it is alleged by the petitioner that in the writ petition filed by the petitioner there was stay operating since 21.09.2000 for maintaining status quo but the respondent contemnor No. 3 sold the property in question by way of registered sale deed on 28.03.2008. The coordinate Bench of this Court after hearing both the parties on 15.01.2013 passed following order: Since in this case, notices were served on the respondent No. 3 Majid Khan on 09.01.2001 vide process server report, yet he has made a stipulation in the impugned sale -deed, despite the status quo order granted by this Court on 21.09.2000 while executing impugned sale -deed dtd. 29.02.2008 that there is no litigation pending about the agricultural land in question sold by him and therefore, he is selling the same in favour of Ms. Ekta Pareek W/o Sarwan Kumar Pareek (Vyas), therefore, prima facie he has made a wrong stipulation in the said sale -deed executed after 7 years of having knowledge of pending litigation before this Court. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit submitted that he has filed a reply to the contempt petition stating that he had no knowledge of the said status quo order granted by this Court, which is prima facie wrong since the service of notice was effected upon him on 9.1.2001 itself. Even if the stay order dtd. 21.9.2000 was not separately served upon him, knowledge of at least this pending litigation in the form of writ petition No. 3369/2000 -Asu Singh and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. can definitely be attributed to him and therefore, he could not have made such a wrong stipulation in the sale -deed that there is no litigation pending about this agricultural land in question. Therefore, prima facie a case of contempt against the respondent No. 3 Majid Khan is made out. He is directed to remain present before this Court on 29.01.2013.
(2.) IN view of above order, it is abundantly clear that inspite of service of notice of writ petition, the respondent contemnor No. 3 sold the property in question without mentioning in the sale deed that litigation is going on and stay is operating. Meaning thereby, the contemnor respondent No. 3 has violated the stay order granted by this Court, therefore, he is required to be punished for disobedience of the order passed by this Court. It is true that as per Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act if, during the pendency of the litigation, any sale or transfer is made, that cannot be treated to be legal but it is also admitted position of the case that inspite of stay granted by this Court, the respondent No. 3 transferred the property in question by way of sale deed, therefore, it is very serious matter.
(3.) IN view of above, it is desirable to punish the respondent contemnor No. 3 because he has disobeyed the order passed by this Court. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, instead of passing order to send him behind the bars, this Court feels that fine is sufficient for punishment. Accordingly, fine of Rs. 25,000/ - is hereby imposed against the contemnor respondent No. 3 which shall be payable to the petitioner within one month from today failing which the contemnor respondent No. 3 will suffer civil imprisonment for one month and further, the sale of land in question made by contemnor respondent No. 3 shall remain subject to the decision of the writ petition. It is also made clear that property in question shall not be further alienated to anybody.;