IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.1255 of 2004 (O&M) Date of decision:20.12.2011 Sawan Singh and others ....Petitioners versus Mukhtiar Singh and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. I.K.Mehta, Senior Advocate, with Mr. M.S.Kohli, Advocate, for the petitioners. None for the respondents. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioners complain of contempt of Court for disobedience of the order of stay of recovery of possession granted by this Court. The contention in the petition is that the stay of recovery of possession must be understood as covering a situation of fettering the right of the applicant to also effect a transfer of property. In this case after obtaining an order of stay, the contemners have transferred the property and hence it must be understood to constitute a contempt of Court. COCP No.1255 of 2004 (O&M) - 2 - 2. The learned senior counsel relies on a judgment of this Court in Bishamber Dayal Versus Harish Chand and others-1988 (1) PLR 592, to contend that an order of injunction against a transfer and a change in nature of property must be taken as violated, if the party in defiance of the order creates a lease or demolishes a super structure. It can be noticed that this judgment would apply to a case where an interdiction against transfer is taken as a bar against the creation of lease. A direction not to change the nature of property must be taken as violated if there was a demolition of super structure. In either case, the creation of lease and demolition squarely violated the Court's order and the Court found that there had been a contempt. I do not find the applicability of this provision at all to this case. 3. The learned senior counsel also relies on a judgment of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Rajendra Prasad and others Versus Raja Ratan Gopal Sainchar (deceased by LRs) and others-1996 CRI.L.J. 1214 that was dealing with a case of a restraint order of a Court prohibiting alienation and letting out disputed property. The direction came in a suit for specific performance of an agreement that included a building in the property. After obtaining the order, the petitioner/appellant had demolished the super structure itself. The Court found that a larger order of a prohibition against alienation must be taken to include within itself of smaller act of doing something in relation to the COCP No.1255 of 2004 (O&M) - 3 - subject matter of the property. The Court found that the status quo had been so badly disrupted and even the subject matter of the agreement had been effaced. In a case where the subject matter was lost, it was surely a case where the interim order of injunction included an act against demolition of the building. 4. In this case, a stay for recovery of possession was stayed and I cannot understand how this order can operate against a right of an alienate. Alienation is a necessary incident of ownership and unless there is a prohibition against alienation per se, there is nothing inherently wrong in alienating properties. 5. This assumes significance in the present context, where we have not been able to evolve strategies to deal with cases and dispose them off within the life time of the persons, who are the litigants. It is a common experience that litigations spill beyond a life time beyond a generation. To fetter property against alienation through interim orders, would be grossly unfair, unless there are special reasons. A suit for recovery of possession that was stayed cannot, in my view, be taken as constituting a prohibition against alienation itself. Even the Civil Procedure Code contemplates an impleadment of party, who is an alienee, pending suit by resort to Order 22 Rule 10. The principle of lis pendens under the Transfer of Property Act does not itself render invalid the sale but, on the other hand, it only makes it subject of the result of the litigation. COCP No.1255 of 2004 (O&M) - 4 - 6. I reject the plea that there has been any violation of the order of this Court. The petition for contempt is consequently dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE 20.12.2011 sanjeev