Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baljit Singh And Anr vs Labh Singh on 10 March, 2026
102 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
CM-3969-CII-2026 in/and
CACP-9-2008 (O&M)
Date of Decision:10.03.2026
BALJIT SINGH AND ANOTHER ....APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
LABH SINGH ....RESPONDENT(S)
CM-3989-CII-2026 in/and
CACP-10-2008 (O&M)
GURDEEP SINGH AND ANOTHER ....APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
LABH SINGH ....RESPONDENT(S)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR
Present: Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Senior Advocate assisted by
Ms. Atika Rani, Advocate
Mr. Vishal Pundir, Advocate
Mr. Abhishek Bhardwaj, Advocate
for the appellant in CACP-9-2008.
Mr. Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate assisted by
Mr. Kunal Mulwani, Advocate
Mr. Ritvik Garg, Advocate and
Mr. R. S. Manhas, Advocate
for the applicants-appellants in CACP-10-2008.
Mr. S. S. Rangi, Senior Advocate assisted by
Mr. Didar Singh, Advocate
for the respondent in CACP-9-2008.
Mr. Mandeep Singh Gill, Advocate
for LRs of deceased Attar Singh.
****
ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. (Oral)
CM-3969-CII-2026 in CACP-9-2008 (restoration)
1. This application under Order XLI Rule 19 read with Order IX Rule 4 and Section 151 CPC, has been filed on behalf of the 1 of 23 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2026 06:22:01 ::: CACP-9-2008 (O&M) and other connected case 2 applicants-appellants seeking restoration of the main appeal being CACP-
9-2008 which was dismissed by this Court for non-prosecution vide order dated 11.02.2026.
2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. The main appeal is restored to its original number and position.
CM-3989-CII-2026 in CACP-10-2008 (restoration)
3. This application under Order XLI Rule 19 read with Order IX Rule 4 and Section 151 CPC has been filed on behalf of the applicants-appellants seeking restoration of the main appeal being CACP-
10-2008 which was dismissed by this Court for non-prosecution vide order dated 11.02.2026.
4. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. The main appeal is restored to its original number and position.
Main Case (O&M)
5. With the consent of the parties, main appeal(s) are taken on Board for hearing today itself.
6. Since the controversies involved in these contempt appeals are identical, they are being dealt with together by this common judgment.
7. These two appeals arise out of an order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in contempt jurisdiction on 30.05.2008 in COCP No.400 of 2006 which is reproduced in extenso:-
"This Contempt Petition under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Article 215 of the Constitution, has been instituted, inter-alia, alleging that 2 of 23 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2026 06:22:01 ::: CACP-9-2008 (O&M) and other connected case 3 notwithstanding the injunction order dated 26.4.1999 passed by this Court in RSA No.1247 of 1999, whereby the 1st respondent (along with Bhagat Singh s/o Ram Singh and Kuldeep Singh s/o Gurdial Singh) was restrained from alienating the land in dispute till further orders, a substantial part thereof, measuring five and a half acres, has been sold of by way of registered sale deed dated 22.2.2006 (copy appended as Annexure P-1).
[2]. The facts may be noticed briefly.
[2.1] The 1st respondent (Attar Singh) filed declaratory suit against the petitioner and some other persons to the effect that he is an owner to the extent of 1/4th share in the suit land comprising in khewat No.9/9, khasra Nos.6//13 (8-0), 25//4/2 (4-16), 5/1 (6-0), 6 (8-0), 7/1 (3-12), 15/1 (6-0), 41//4/2 (7-10), 5/3 (6-13), 6 (8-0), 71/41 (4-16), 15/1 (3-7), 42//8/2 (1-9), 10/2 (7-0), 13/1 (5-13), 14/1 (3-8), 46//13/2 (3-
13), 17(3-0), 76(0-8), 105(2-0), 128(0-2), Khewat No.10/10, khasra No.11//33 (4-6), 6//8/3 (2-7), 17/2 (1-13), 18/2 (0-3), 14/1 (2-0), 23/3 (0-6), 24/1 (3-10), 11//5/2 (4-13), 11/1 (0-
11), 21//16/2 (4-8), 16//3 (2-4), 25(6-16), Khasra/Khatauni No.12/12, Khasra No.37//24/2 (0-11), 46//15 (8-0), Khewat No.13/13, khasra No.46/17 (8-0), 8/1 (3-16), Khewat/Khatauni No.14/14, Khasra No.46//6/2 (5-0), 14 (7-
19), 16(3-17) and Khewat No.15/15, khasra Nos. 6//24/2 (6-
18), situated within the revenue estate of village Chao Majra, Tehsil Kharar (now in Tehsil SAS Nagar (Mohali), District SAS Nagar (Mohali). The suit was decreed by the civil court at Kharar and the said judgment and decree were further affirmed by the first Appellate Court also vide its judgment and decree dated 18.12.1998. Aggrieved, the petitioner, along with others, filed RSA No.1247 of 1999 (Karori Singh & Ors. v. Attar Singh & Ors.) in this Court 3 of 23 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2026 06:22:01 ::: CACP-9-2008 (O&M) and other connected case 4 along with Civil Misc. No.2380-C of 1999 for the grant of adinterim injunction. While issuing notice of motion, this Court issued an ex-parte injunction order dated 26.4.1999 whereby the 1st respondent, Bhagat Singh s/o Ram Singh and Kuldeep Singh s/o Gurdial Singh were restrained "from alienating the property in dispute till further orders".
Admittedly, the ad-interim injunction order is still operating and the Regular Second Appeal has been admitted by this Court after hearing both the parties.
[3] It is a matter of common knowledge and not in dispute as well that the subject-land now falls within Tehsil Mohali, adjoining the Union Territory of Chandigarh. The land is not only useful for agricultural purposes only but has great potential for urbanization/commercial activities. Market price of such kind of lands have multiplied many-folds. The land Mafia has obviously developed a keen interest in the subject land. The facts on record also indicate as to how the unscrupulous property dealers have been able to lure the litigating farmers to sell off their lands even at the cost of brazen violation of the interim orders passed by this Court. [4]. The petitioner has specifically respondents No.2 to 5 are 'Real Estate Dealers'. There appears to be some substance in the petitioner's contention as the 3rd respondent operates from Shop-cum-Office situated in Sector 70, Mohali, i.e., a place beyond the reach of an ordinary farmer/agriculturist. 2nd and 4th respondents are real brothers whereas the 5th respondent is their associate.
[5]. On 20.12.2005, the 1st respondent, against whom the restraint order from alienating the property in dispute was passed by this Court on 26.4.1999, entered into an 'agreement to sell' (copy appended as Annexure P-4) in favour of the respondents No.3 and 4. The agreement to sell 4 of 23 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2026 06:22:01 ::: CACP-9-2008 (O&M) and other connected case 5 appears to be cleverly drafted of with misleading description 'khewat/khatauni' and 'khasra' numbers of the land ostensibly to create the plea of "bona fide" purchasers. It is further recited that the land "is free from encumbrances and there is no litigation pending in respect of this land". According to the said agreement, a sum of Rs.15 lacs was paid to the 1st respondent as earnest money and the balance amount was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed on 20.2.2006 in the name of the GPA holder "or in the name nominee".
[6]. The petitioner, however, came to know about the above stated 'agreement to sell' and rushed to this Court by way of COCP No.160 of 2006 which was, however, dismissed as withdrawn on 3.2.2006. The petitioner thereafter served the 1st respondent with a legal notice dated 18.1.2006 (copy Annexure P-5) and sent copies thereof to:- (i) Tehsildar, Mohali; (ii) Gurdeep Singh (respondent No.4); and (iii) Narinder Singh (respondent No.3). In their reply-affidavits, respondents No.1, 3 and 4 do not dispute the receipt of the legal notice. The petitioner specifically informed in the above notices about the restraint order passed by this Court and that their proposed action was contemptuous in nature. Besides this, the petitioner also sent a representation to the Estate-Officer-cum-Tehsildar, Mohali informing him that the 'agreement to sell' dated 20.12.2005 executed by the 1st respondent in favour of respondents No.3 and 4 was illegal, null and void.
[7]. Having realized that the execution of the sale deed would entail the consequences like contempt of this Court but being in no mood to give up their plan, respondents No.3 got executed a General Power of Attorney (GPA) dated 14.2.2006 from the 1st respondent in his favour as well as in 5 of 23 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2026 06:22:01 ::: CACP-9-2008 (O&M) and other connected case 6 favour of Baljit Singh (respondent No.2) (appended as Annexure R2/2 by the 2nd respondent with his reply affidavit). It is recited in the GPA that respondent No.1 was unable to look-after his share in the property, therefore, he had appointed 2nd and 3rd respondents as his 'general attorneys', who were further authorized to deal with the same, including execution of the sale deed in respect thereto. [8]. On the strength of the above stated GPA, respondents No.2 and 3 executed the offending sale deed on 22.2.2006 (Annexure P-1) whereby land measuring 5-1/2 acres has been sold to respondents No.4 and 5 for an alleged sale consideration of Rs.30 lacs.
[9]. As noticed earlier, respondents No.2 and 4 are real brothers. While one of them became the vendor along with respondent No.3, the other assumed the role of vendee. The afore-said sale-transaction has given rise to these contempt proceedings.
[10]. On 31.3.2006, show cause notice was issued to the respondents as to why proceedings for committing Contempt of this Court be not initiated against them. Upon consideration of their reply affidavits and after hearing their learned counsel, this Court vide order dated 15.12.2006 held respondents No.1 to 3 prima-facie guilty of willfully and deliberately breaching the restrain order passed by this Court. Vide a subsequent order dated 30.5.2007, respondents No.4 and 5, who are beneficiaries of the offending sale transaction, too, were held prima-facie guilty and since they did not appear despite service, their presence was secured through bailable warrants. At that stage, respondent No.1 also disappeared and his presence too was secured through non-bailable warrants.
[11]. Vide an order dated 20.5.2008, the respondents, as 6 of 23 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2026 06:22:01 ::: CACP-9-2008 (O&M) and other connected case 7 prayed for by them, were given an opportunity to purge the contempt.
[12]. In response thereto, some of them have filed their additional affidavits to shed crocodile tears as they claim to have purged the contempt by cancelling the 'General Power of Attorney' and the 'agreement to sell' executed by the 1st respondent. Needless to say that after execution of the sale- deed dated 22.2.2006 in favour of respondents No.4 & 5, the said GPA had already been rendered infructuous. The respondents No.2 to 5, however, gave an impression as if the sale deed once executed, could not be cancelled. To ascertain the truth, the Sub-Registrar, Mohali was directed to be present in Court. He appeared on 26.5.2008 and made a statement that the sale deed, if so directed, can be cancelled. One more opportunity was, therefore, given to respondents No.2 to 5 to take an appropriate and effective action in the matter which was, however, not acceptable to them.
[13]. In these circumstances, Learned Counsel for the parties have been heard at length and material on record has been perused.
[14] Any willful disobedience to a judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a Court, tantamounts to 'civil contempt'. It is well known that a person shall be guilty of breach of a prohibitory orders even if the order was not officially served provided that it is established on record that he had notice of the order and he knew that it was meant to be enforced.
[15]. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urges that the first respondent already knew about the prohibitory order passed by this Court and it was also brought to the knowledge of 7 of 23 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2026 06:22:01 ::: CACP-9-2008 (O&M) and other connected case 8 respondents No.3 & 4 by way of a registered legal notice. The 2nd respondent happens to be brother of respondent No.4 whereas the fifth respondent is their co-beneficiary. Each one of them, thus, is alleged to be guilty of willful and deliberate breach of the injunction order.
[16]. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has come up with a plea that he is an innocent villager who is alleged to have been 'duped' by the 'land Mafia' comprising of respondents No.2 to 5 and that the GPA/Sale- Deed were got executed from the 1st respondent by concealing the facts and in a fraudulent manner, without paying any sale consideration.
[17]. As against it, Learned Counsel for Respondents No.2 to 5 refutes the allegations made by the 1st Respondent and contends that while respondents No.4 and 5 are bona-fide purchasers who have paid a hefty amount towards the sale consideration, respondents No.2 and 3 have already 'purged' the contempt as the GPA and 'agreement to sell' have now been revoked/cancelled.
[18]. Respondent No.1, 3 and 4 in their reply or additional affidavits have not denied the receipt of the legal notice (Annexure P-5). The injunction order dated 26.4.1999 passed by this Court restraining the 1st respondent from alienating the suit land was, thus, very much within their knowledge. Despite that, respondent No.3 who appears to be in the business of Real Estate, did not hesitate in securing the GPA in his own favour as well as in favour of the 2nd respondent. On the strength of the said GPA, they became the 'vendors' and executed the sale deed in favour of non- else than the real brother of respondent No.2, i.e., respondent No.4 and their associate, namely, respondent No.5. Respondent No.5 has chosen not to file any separate 8 of 23 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2026 06:22:01 ::: CACP-9-2008 (O&M) and other connected case 9 affidavit to deny his knowledge regarding the interim order. With these unrebutted facts on record, there can be no other conclusion but to hold that each one of the respondents had full knowledge of the 'injunction order' passed by this Court, yet in flagrant violation thereof, they got executed the deeds/documents one after the others. All the respondents are, therefore, guilty of committing the 'civil contempt' of this Court. At the cost of repetition, it may be mentioned here that due to its location near UT Chandigarh, the subject property has gained steep hike in price. Uncontrolled greed appears to have led the respondents to take this misadventurous step with a misconceived notion as if the money power is mightier than the rule of law.
[19]. Notwithstanding the contemptuous action of the respondents, it was deemed appropriate to give opportunity to them to restore the injunction order and obey it in its true letter and spirit. Instead of showing any remorse for their misconduct, respondents No.2 to 5 rather attempted to mislead this court by suggesting the cancellation of the 'GPA' and 'Agreement to Sell' executed by the 1st respondent in their favour. In other words, they still wanted to keep the offending sale-deed intact. That being so, the unconditional apology, which lacks repentance, too cannot be accepted and the same is hereby rejected.
[20]. To be fair to Learned Counsel for the Respondents No.2 to 5, he has placed heavy reliance upon an order dated 18.12.2006 passed by this Court while disposing of COCP No.531 of 1992 (Balwant Singh v. Balwant Kaur & Ors.). That was a case where despite pendency of the contempt proceedings for a period of about 14 years, the contemners vendors (Balwant Kaur and Bachan Kaur) were untraceable and their whereabouts were unknown. In those 9 of 23 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2026 06:22:01 ::: CACP-9-2008 (O&M) and other connected case 10 circumstances, the contempt petition was disposed of with a direction to the vendees who had purchased the land in violation of the injunction order that they "shall not be permitted to take the plea of bona fide purchasers...". The facts and circumstances of the aforesaid case were, thus, totally different.
[21]. It is well known that public has interest in the effective and orderly administration of justice. This Court owes a duty to protect the afore-said interest of the public for which it has been clothed with the power to convict for contempt of court, not only to protect its own dignity against insult or injury as is oftenly suggested, but also to protect and vindicate the right of the public that the administration of justice shall not be prevented, prejudiced, obstructed or interfered with.
[22]. Learned Counsel for the Respondents have been heard on the quantum of sentence also. No mitigating circumstance of any nature has been pleaded or proved. The manner in which the respondents have acted in connivance with each other, dissuades this Court from showing any clemency or taking a lenient view. Consequently, each of the respondents is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months with fine of Rs.2,000/- each. The order of sentence, however, shall remain suspended for a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order so as to enable the respondents to prefer any appeal, if so advised.
[23]. There remains yet another crucial question as to whether the contemners can be allowed to enjoy and/or retain the fruits of contempt. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd. & Ors., (1996)4 SCC 622, held as 10 of 23 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2026 06:22:01 ::: CACP-9-2008 (O&M) and other connected case 11 follows:-
"17. The principle that a contemner ought not to be permitted to enjoy and/or keep the fruits of his contempt is well settled. In Mohd. Idris v. Rustam Jehangir Babuji this Court held clearly that undergoing the punishment for contempt does not mean that the court is not entitled to appropriate directions for remedying and rectifying the things done in violation of its orders. The petitioners had given an undertaking to the Bombay High Court. They acted in breach of it. A learned Single Judge held them guilty of contempt and imposed a sentence of one month's imprisonment. In addition thereto, the Single Judge learned made appropriate direction to remedy the breach of undertaking. It was contended before this Court that the learned Judge was not justified in giving the aforesaid directions in addition to punishing the petitioners for contempt of court. The argument was rejected holding that "the Single Judge was quite right in giving appropriate direction to close the breach (of undertaking)".
[24]. A Full Bench of the Madras High Court, in Century Flour Mills Ltd. v. S. Suppiah, AIR 1975 Madras 270, held that:- "where an act is done in violation of an order of stay or injunction, it is the duty of the court, as a policy, to set the wrong right and not allow the perpetuation of the wrongdoing. The inherent power of the court, it was held, is 11 of 23 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2026 06:22:01 ::: CACP-9-2008 (O&M) and other connected case 12 not only available in such a case, but it is bound to exercise it to undo the wrong in the interest of justice." That was a case where a meeting was held contrary to an order of injunction. The court refused to recognize that the holding of the meeting is a legal one. It put back the parties in the same position as they should have been prior to the service of the interim order. The aforequoted view has been expressly approved by the Apex Court in Skipper Const. Co.'s case (supra).
[25]. Adverting to the facts of the present case, it may be seen that despite an advance warning given by the petitioner through legal notice, the respondents went ahead to achieve their evil designs with a sense of bravado. The principle that 'what a contemner has unlawfully grabbed, must be lawfully snatched from him', applies here very aptly. The respondents cannot be allowed to tamper with the spirit and object of a court order and that too in such an outrageous manner that it might erode the public faith in the administration of justice. The growing tendency in a section of society that they can 'manage' or 'maneuver' the things the way they want, has to be curbed with iron hands.
[26]. Consequently, and for the reasons afore-stated, besides sentencing the respondents with simple imprisonment and fine, as directed above, this contempt petition is disposed of with the following directions:-
(i) the Collector and Sub-Registrar, Mohali are directed to cancel forthwith the sale deed No.4142 dated 22.2.2006 executed by respondents No.2 & 3 in favour respondents No.4 & 5 in their capacity as holders of General Power of Attorney of respondent No.1;
(ii) the stamp duty affixed on the sale deed shall stand forfeited;
12 of 23 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2026 06:22:01 ::: CACP-9-2008 (O&M) and other connected case 13
(iii) it shall be open to respondents No.4 & 5 to recover the sale consideration, if any, paid to respondent No.1 in accordance with law;
(iv) The 'agreement to sell', if any, entered into by respondent No.1 in favour of other respondents shall remain intact but in abeyance leaving it open for the other respondents to seek enforcement thereof after the decision of RSA No.1247 of 1997 and/or vacation of injunction order;
(v) henceforth, the Collector and Sub-Registrar, Mohali are also restrained from executing any sale deed and/or Transfer-Deed in respect of the land in dispute till the injunction order passed by this Court is operative. Let a copy of this order be handed over to Shri M.C. Berry, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab for information and necessary compliance.
Dasti"
8. Before proceeding further, certain facts require narration. It transpires that a suit for declaration was filed by one Attar Singh claiming a 1/4th right over the property in question. Attar Singh filed Civil Suit Nos.332 of 1989 and 239 of 1992 seeking a declaration that the plaintiff is the owner/co-parcener and is in joint possession to the extent of a 1/4th share in the suit land, or alternatively, for a decree of possession in the event the plaintiff(s) are found to have been dispossessed. The suit was decreed in favour of Attar Singh on 08.02.1994. The defendants, i.e., Karora Singh, Labh Singh, and Sucha Singh, thereafter filed Civil Appeal No.63/2402/1994, which was also dismissed. The defendants then preferred Regular Second Appeal No.1247 of 1999, in which a notice of motion was issued by the Court on 26.04.1999. An order of injunction
13 of 23 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2026 06:22:01 ::: CACP-9-2008 (O&M) and other connected case 14 was also passed in the aforesaid appeal restraining the respondent from alienating the suit property. The order of stay passed in Regular Second Appeal No.1247 of 1999 is reproduced below:-
"Upon notice made up to this Court by Sh. KK Garg, Advocate, counsel for the appellant and upon considering the petition of the appellant filed in the matter on 19.1.94 this court doth order that an ad-interim injunction to be and the same is hereby issued to restrain you from alienating the property in dispute till further orders.........."
9. Regular Second Appeal No.1247 of 1999 was thereafter admitted for hearing on 15.02.2001. Interim protection granted earlier at the time of issuance of notice of motion was not vacated/discharged.
10. During the pendency of Regular Second Appeal No.1247 of 1999 and during the continuance of the interim injunction granted therein restraining the respondents from alienating the suit property, a sale deed came to be executed on 22.02.2006, whereby the suit land was sold through the General Power of Attorney of Attar Singh in favour of Baljit Singh and Narinder Singh to Gurdeep Singh and Gurvinder Singh. The contempt petition came to be filed on the ground that the execution of the sale deed on 22.02.2006 was in derogation of the ad interim injunction granted in Regular Second Appeal No.1247 of 1999 on 26.04.1999. It is in these contempt proceedings that the order was passed by the learned Single Judge, which has already been reproduced.
11. It further transpires that after the execution of the sale deed, the vendees applied for impleadment under Order I Rule 22 read with Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, which was allowed on 02.09.2008. During the 14 of 23 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2026 06:22:01 ::: CACP-9-2008 (O&M) and other connected case 15 pendency of Regular Second Appeal No.1247 of 1999, the suit land came to be acquired pursuant to a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for setting up of an IT City/Knowledge Park. A declaration was also issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act.
An award has also been passed in the said proceedings. The awarded amount in respect of the suit property is lying in deposit with the Treasury. This was done pursuant to an order dated 15.03.2012 passed in Regular Second Appeal No.1247 of 1999. The order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the contempt proceedings came to be challenged in contempt appeal(s), being CACP Nos.9, 10, and 11 of 2008. Contempt Appeal No.11 of 2008 has already abated on account of the death of the plaintiff, Attar Singh, vide order dated 21.08.2024. The other appeals, however, remain pending.
12. The record further reveals that Regular Second Appeal No. 1247 of 1999 was directed to be heard along with the pending contempt appeals. So far as the Regular Second Appeal is concerned, an application was moved by the legal representatives of the deceased stating that they had entered into a compromise with the respondents in the Regular Second Appeal, and that the appeal itself be disposed of in terms of such compromise. This prayer for disposal of the appeal in terms of the compromise was objected to by the vendees of the sale deed dated 22.02.2006. Faced with such objection, the appellants came up with a prayer to withdraw the appeal. It is in these circumstances that Regular Second Appeal No.1247 of 1999 has been dismissed as not pressed. The 15 of 23 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2026 06:22:01 ::: CACP-9-2008 (O&M) and other connected case 16 judgment and decree passed by the trial Court have thus attained finality.
13. On behalf of the appellants, it is contended that although the sale deed was executed in the teeth of the interim order passed in Regular Second Appeal No.1247 of 1999, yet since the appeal itself has failed upon its dismissal, there is no reason why the Court should not revive the sale deed and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge. It is further argued that the punishment awarded to the appellants is wholly unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of the present case(s). It is also urged that the appellants were under the bona fide belief that no interim order existed in the matter(s), inasmuch as on 15.02.2001, while admitting Regular Second Appeal No.1247 of 1999, no separate interim order was passed. Therefore, the appellants were under the bona fide belief that the transaction of sale was not in derogation of the interim relief. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants relied upon paragraph No.47 of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Thomson Press (India) Limited vs. Nanak Builders and Investors Private Limited and Others, (2013) 5 SCC 397. The attention of the Court has also been invited to paragraph No.53 of the said judgment, which reads as under:-
"53. There is, therefore, little room for any doubt that the transfer of the suit property pendente lite is not void ab intio and that the purchaser or any such property takes the bargain subject to the rights of the plaintiff in the pending suit. Although the above decisions do not deal with a fact situation where the sale deed is executed in breach of an injunction issued by a competent court, we do not see any 16 of 23 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2026 06:22:01 ::: CACP-9-2008 (O&M) and other connected case 17 reason why the breach of any such injunction should render the transfer whether by way of an absolute sale or otherwise ineffective. The party committing the breach may doubtless incur the liability to be punished for the breach committed by it but the sale by itself may remain valid as between the parties to the transaction subject only to any directions which the competent court may issue in the suit against the vendor."
14. On behalf of the appellants, it is also urged that though an order was passed in Regular Second Appeal No.1247 of 1999 for the awarded compensation to be kept in deposit but some part of the amount has already been withdrawn by the legal heirs of the deceased-plaintiff and therefore they are in contempt of the orders passed in Regular Second Appeal No.1247 of 1999.
15. Per contra, on behalf of the respondents it is contended that the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Regular Second Appeal No.1247 of 1999 clearly and categorically restrained the defendants from alienating the suit property, despite which the sale deed was executed on 22.02.2006. It is also submitted that a legal notice was served upon the appellants. It is urged that the right of the appellants to claim the suit property is also disputed on the ground that no consideration had passed on to the vendors and that the claim regarding the sale itself was not genuine or bona fide. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge, while passing the order in contempt jurisdiction, has adequately protected the appellants by maintaining the Agreement to Sell and conferring upon them the right to seek further remedy based 17 of 23 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2026 06:22:01 ::: CACP-9-2008 (O&M) and other connected case 18 upon such Agreement to Sell, namely by filing a suit for specific performance, etc. It is contended that the appellants filed Civil Suit No.923 of 2025 for specific performance on the basis of the Agreement to Sell dated 15.02.2006. This suit, although dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, was remitted to the concerned trial Court in appeal. The suit, as well as the injunction application therein, is still pending. It is further submitted that on behalf of the appellants, a petition being CWP No.3051 of 2026 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has also been filed for directing the concerned authorities to refer the matter for adjudication to the appropriate authority in terms of Sections 76 and 77 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for adequate apportionment of the compensation awarded in the matter. It is, therefore, submitted that once the appellants are already pursuing an appropriate alternative remedy before the competent forum, this Court is not required to adjudicate the respective rights and contentions of the parties in the appeal(s) arising out of the contempt proceedings.
16. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant in CACP-10-2008 has also placed before us an adjudication by the Civil Court in Civil Suit No.334 of 2008 challenging the Sale Deed as well as consequential mutation and for declaration that plaintiffs are in joint possession of land in question.
17. This suit rightly has been dismissed by the trial Court on 26.02.2015.
18 of 23 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2026 06:22:01 ::: CACP-9-2008 (O&M) and other connected case 19
18. On behalf of the respondents, it is also stated that further Agreement to Sell etc., has been executed by the appellants during the pendency of Regular Second Appeal No.1247 of 1999 and continuance of interim order.
19. From the materials placed on record, we find existence of civil dispute between the parties. The controversy raised in the instant appeals are conveniently segregated into two parts.
20. The first part relates to the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the contempt proceedings directing the cancellation of the sale deed dated 22.02.2006, on the ground that it was in violation of the interim injunction passed in Regular Second Appeal No.1247 of 1999 on 26.04.1999. The second part relates to the inter se claims between the appellants and the respondents in respect of the suit property.
21. So far as the second part is concerned, the parties are at issue on various factual and legal aspects. The right of the appellants in respect of the property essentially flows from an Agreement to Sell allegedly executed by the plaintiff(s) on 20.12.2005, as well as a General Power of Attorney executed on 22.02.2006. This General Power of Attorney is alleged to have been subsequently cancelled during the pendency of the contempt proceedings. The suit property has otherwise been subjected to land acquisition proceedings, and the award pursuant to such compulsory acquisition of some part has been passed by the trial Court. The basic issue that now survives is with regard to the determination of the claim of apportionment/compensation between the parties. Such dispute of inter se 19 of 23 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2026 06:22:01 ::: CACP-9-2008 (O&M) and other connected case 20 rights of the parties can be gone into by the appropriate forum under the Land Acquisition Act. The claim of the parties also remains in respect of a part of the suit property which has not been subjected to acquisition.
The learned Single Judge has correctly noticed that on the date when the sale deed was executed, i.e., 22.02.2006, an order of injunction was operating against the respondents in Regular Second Appeal No.1247 of 1999, and therefore the sale deed was executed in violation of the order of injunction.
22. To this extent, there is no factual or legal issue that survives now.
23. It is undisputed that no Sale Deed could have been executed on 22.02.2006, as the defendants were already restrained by this Court in Regular Second Appeal No.1247 of 1999 from alienating the suit property.
24. The thrust of the appellants' submission is that once the appeal itself has been dismissed as withdrawn, the declaration granted in respect of the suit property by the competent Civil Court has attained finality and, therefore, the sale deed executed by the plaintiffs/respondents cannot be invalidated merely on the ground that it was in violation of the interim injunction. It is in this context that the appellants have placed reliance upon the observations contained in paragraph No.53 of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Thomson Press (supra).
25. The factual position in the case of Thomson Press (supra) 20 of 23 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2026 06:22:01 ::: CACP-9-2008 (O&M) and other connected case 21 was somewhat different and distinct from the facts of the instant case(s).
In Thomson Press (supra), although the sale deed was found to have been executed in breach of the injunction and the party committing the breach had incurred the liability to be punished for such breach, the sale by itself may remain valid as between the parties to the transaction, subject only to any directions which the competent Court may issue in the suit against the vendor.
26. Admittedly, Regular Second Appeal No.1247 of 1999 was dismissed as not pressed in the year 2025, by which time the Sale Deed had already been cancelled under the orders of the learned Single Judge.
The Contempt Court, while directing the cancellation of the Sale Deed in 2008, had adequately protected all those claiming rights through Attar Singh, allowing them to institute appropriate proceedings for the establishment of their rights once Regular Second Appeal No.1247 of 1999 was finally adjudicated or the injunction was vacated. Admittedly, Regular Second Appeal No.1247 of 1999 was dismissed in September 2025. In terms of the liberty granted by the learned Single Judge in the contempt proceedings, civil proceedings have already been instituted by those claiming through Attar Singh (including the appellants) for specific performance of the contract, as well as for possession and other ancillary reliefs. These proceedings are admittedly pending.
27. Once such is the position, we are of the view that no direction in respect of inter se civil rights of the parties are required to be adjudicated or even commented upon in the present proceedings which 21 of 23 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2026 06:22:01 ::: CACP-9-2008 (O&M) and other connected case 22 are confined to the directions issued by the Contempt Court.
28. We are therefore refraining from expressing any further on the merits of the respective claims of the parties.
29. On such count, we are not persuaded to adopt the course followed by the Supreme Court in paragraph No.53 of the judgment in Thomson Press (supra).
30. We may observe that the Contempt Court had also punished the appellants with simple imprisonment for a period of six months, along with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each. We, however, are inclined to interfere with this part of the order of the learned Single Judge in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, as we find that, on account of the subsequent disposal of Regular Second Appeal No.1247 of 1999 and the rights conferred on the appellants to establish their rights in independent proceedings, it would not be appropriate to sustain the conviction and the consequential sentence. We, therefore, partly allow the appeal(s) and set aside that part of the order(s) of the learned Single Judge whereby the appellants were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months, along with a fine of Rs.2,000/- each.
31. A statement is also made by learned Senior Counsel for the appellants in CACP-10-2008 that he would withdraw the transfer application filed in the matter and would press for disposal of the injunction application before the competent Court.
32. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present appeal(s), we also leave it open for the parties to seek appropriate 22 of 23 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2026 06:22:01 ::: CACP-9-2008 (O&M) and other connected case 23 protection in the pending proceedings before the competent forum for the establishment of their rights. In aid of this observation, we direct that the status quo as it exists today shall be maintained by the parties for a period of 15 days, and no fresh rights shall be created within this period, nor shall any of the deposited amounts, etc., be permitted to be withdrawn.
However, after the expiry of the fortnight, the parties shall be at liberty to proceed as per their respective rights in accordance with law.
33. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
34. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected case.
[ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA] JUDGE [ROHIT KAPOOR] JUDGE MARCH 10, 2026 Rahul Joshi
1. Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
2. Whether Reportable Yes/No 23 of 23 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2026 06:22:01 :::