RSA No. 323 of 2003 5.12.2012 Present: Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Pawan Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Vishal Bindra, Advocate, for respondent No.3. CMP No.815 of 2011 This is an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC for disobedience of interim order dated 22.4.2004 passed in CMP No.537 of 2003. It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that suit land is consisting of khasra Nos.258, 260 and 267, measuring 5-5-2 bighas. It has been stated that in RSA No.323 of 2003 in CMP No.537 of 2003 the ad-interim order dated 3.9.2003 was made absolute on 22.4.2004 with a direction to the parties to maintain status quo qua the possession of the suit land till the disposal of the appeal. It has been stated that respondents No.1 and 2 in violation of order dated 3.9.2003 read with order dated 22.4.2004 have sold the land in question to respondent No.3 through registered sale deed dated 28.7.2006. In the sale deed it has been mentioned that possession has been delivered by respondents No.1 and 2 to respondent No.3. 2. The respondents No.1 and 2 have filed the reply. The respondent No.3 has also filed the reply and contested the application. They have not denied the execution of sale deed dated 28.7.2006 by respondents No.1 and 2 in favour of respondent No.3 but they have denied the violation of order dated 3.9.2003 and order 22.4.2004. 3. On 22.4.2004, ad-interim order dated 3.9.2003 was made absolute with a direction to the parties to maintain status quo qua the possession of the suit land till the disposal of the appeal. A copy of sale deed dated 28.7.2006 has been placed on record and in the sale deed, it has been stated that possession of the land has been delivered, but in the sale deed it has not been stated that when the possession was delivered. It cannot be assumed that possession was delivered only after the execution of sale deed. In the application the petitioners have stated that they are in actual and settled possession of the suit land and they have constructed a cow-shed over khasra No.260. The petitioners have not led specific evidence that after ad- interim order dated 3.9.2003 and interim order dated 22.4.2004, the possession of the suit land in fact was handed over by respondents No.1 and 2 to respondent No.3. The allegations are vague. The petitioners No.1 and 2 are claiming their possession on khasra No.260 even now. In these circumstances, the petitioners have failed to make out a case for violation of ad- interim order dated 3.9.2003 and interim order dated 22.4.2004. Hence, the application is dismissed. (Kuldip Singh), Judge. December 5, 2012 (sks)