SBCMA No.1530/2008 Satyanarayan Vs. Man Singh 1 SBCMA No.1530/2008 Satyanarayan Vs. Man Singh DATE OF ORDER : - 6.11.2008 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.MD Boob,for the appellant. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant is aggrieved against the order dated 26th August, 2008 by which the petition under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC was dismissed by the trial court. The alleged violation of the order took place in the year 1996. The plea of the appellant is that despite the interim order passed by the trial court, the respondent sold the property in question. The facts mentioned in the order itself reveal that the notice was served upon the respondent by affixure of notice on the house of the respondent as he was not found at his and the respondent's wife refused to accept the same. According to learned counsel for the appellant on next date the property was sold and, thereafter, the defendant-r put in appearance in court. Therefore, according to learned SBCMA No.1530/2008 Satyanarayan Vs. Man Singh 2 counsel for the appellant, the respondent-defendant knowing it well that suit for injunction is pending, sold the property and appeared in the court in pursuance of the service of the notice by affixure. The trial court committed error of law by giving contradictory finding to its own finding about the service upon the defendant of the notice of the suit and injunction application. In view of the above facts that the incident occurred in the year 1996, the notice was served by affixure and that can be done only when the respondent-defendant is not found and his family member refuses to accept the notice, the property was sold on next date and in view of the above reasons, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order by exercising appellate jurisdiction for the purpose of punishing the contemnor as the punishing of a contemnor is also needs reasonable reason for punishing. The finding of the trial court that the service was not sufficient or irregular by affixure is concerned, that was not in fact very much relevant and important issue in the facts of this case and the appellant is not going to suffer because of the reason the principle of lis pendence fully applies when SBCMA No.1530/2008 Satyanarayan Vs. Man Singh 3 the property sold during the pendency of the suit. In this situation, I do not find that it is expedient in the interest of justice to proceed against the respondent. In view of the above, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-