IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.315 of 2011 Date of decision : October 12, 2011 Tula Ram …Petitioner. Versus Gauri Ram …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent : None. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) A suit has been filed against the petitioner, by respondent Gauri Ram, seeking declaration and injunction. Application, under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was also filed, for grant of temporary injunction, by the plaintiff-respondent. Trial Court ordered maintenance of status-quo, with regard to alienation of the suit property, on 18th February, 2009. Petitioner is alleged to have disobeyed that order, by executing an agreement to sell, on 21st February, 2009. An application, under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, was filed by the plaintiff-respondent in the Civil Court. Civil Court dismissed that application, vide order dated 22nd June, 2010, with the observation that the agreement to sell did not amount to alienation. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… It was also observed that the agreement had been executed on 17th February, 2009, a day before the passing of the order, allegedly disobeyed. 2. Appeal was filed by the plaintiff-respondent in the Court of learned District Judge at Nahan. Accepting that appeal, learned District Judge, vide order dated 7th June, 2011, ordered attachment of the property of the petitioner and in case he does not have any property for keeping him in civil imprisonment for seven days. Petitioner has challenged that order of the learned District Judge, copy Annexure P-5, by means of the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record. 4. Learned trial Court has observed that the agreement was executed on 17th February, 2009 or say a day before the passing of the order dated 18th February, 2009, which is alleged to have been disobeyed. Learned District Judge has not upset this finding or observation of the learned trial Court. This apart, the order, which is alleged to have been disobeyed, was to the effect that the status-quo shall be maintained qua sale, gift, mortgage, lease or creation of any charge on the suit property. 5. Learned District Judge has observed that the agreement was got attested from the Executive …3… Magistrate on 21st February, 2009. Attestation was merely a formality. Agreement itself stood executed on 17th February, 2009. Attestation was only to the effect that the agreement had been admitted to have been signed by both the parties. Therefore, it cannot be said that the agreement was completed on 21st February, 2009, when it was presented for attestation and got attested from an Executive Magistrate. 6. By entering into an agreement for sale, petitioner cannot be said to have sold or even created any charge on the property. Alleged contemptuous act was only in the form of an agreement for the sale of the property, in future. 7. In view of the abovestated position, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order of learned District Judge is quashed. Petition stands disposed of. Pending application also stands disposed of. October 12, 2011(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J