Sangeet Lodha, J. - (1.) THIS contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging disobedience of order dt. 8.9.2000 passed by this Court in S.B.C. Writ Petition No. 3246/2000, which stands confirmed vide order dt. 4.7.01. The order dt. 8.9.2000 reads as under: "Meanwhile, the parties are directed to maintain the status quo with respect to the subject land." The case of the petitioner is that willfully and deliberately flouting the directions issued by this Court, the respondent No. 3 -contemnor, who is respondent No. 5 in the writ petition, has transferred the disputed land in favour of one Smt. Akta Pareek w/o. Shri Sharwan Kumar Pareek by way of registered sale deed dt. 29.2.12. It is submitted that a copy of the interim order passed by the writ Court as aforesaid, was submitted by the petitioner before the respondent No. 1 & 2 and requested them not to mutate the land in favour of the purchaser, however, the respondent No. 1 & 2 ignoring the order passed by this Court, sanctioned the mutation in favour of the purchaser. Accordingly, it is prayed that the respondents -contemnors are guilty of willful and deliberate disobedience of order dt. 8.9.2000 passed by this Court and therefore, deserve to be punished adequately.
(2.) A reply to the contempt petition has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 & 2 taking the stand that the copy of the stay order dt. 8.9.2000 was never served upon them nor the petitioner ever requested them not to mutate the land in favour of the purchaser. It is stated that the land was mutated in favour of the purchaser after going through the contents of the sale deed wherein it is specifically mentioned that in respect of the land subject matter of the sale deed, no case is instituted in any Court and no stay order granted by the Court is operative. Accordingly, it is submitted on behalf of the respondent No. 1 & 2 that they have not disobeyed the order passed by this Court. The respondent No. 3 in the reply to the contempt petition filed, has taken the stand that the copy of the writ petition was not served upon him. It is averred that the petitioner did not communicate the stay order to the respondent or to the Registrar concerned on or before the registration of the sale deed and as a matter of fact, the petitioner produced the said order before the concerned authority at the time of attestation and acceptance of the mutation. Suffice it to say that the respondent has denied the knowledge of interim order passed by the Court as aforesaid.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that after passing of the interim order as aforesaid, the notices alongwith copy of the writ petition were duly served upon the respondent No. 3 herein and the power was filed on his behalf Mr. B.K. Mehar, Advocate on 15.5.01 and interim order dt. 8.9.2000 was confirmed thereafter on 4.7.01 and therefore, the defence sought to be taken by the respondent No. 3 that he had no knowledge about the interim order passed by this Court is false to his knowledge.;