IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2032 of 2007 IN THE GOODS OF RAJENDRA SINGH & BIJENDRA SINGH BOTH S/O LATE CHANDRA KESHO SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- CHHITNAMA, P.S.-MANER, DISTRICT- PATNA, BIHAR. DHARMNATH MISHRA ………………PETITIONER. VERSUS RAMNATH SINGH & OTHERS ………………OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 12 15.12.2008 In first appeal no. 359 of 1988 by order dated 12.7.1989 ad-interim injunction was granted restraining the respondents from transferring plot no. 721 till further orders. Notices were also issued to the respondents in the injunction matter. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 appeared in the appeal and filed their counter affidavit. However on 27.9.1993, when the matter was taken up, no one appeared on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2, therefore, the order of interim injunction dated 12.7.1989 made operative till the disposal of the appeal with permission to the respondents that if the respondents intended to sell any part of the plot no. 721 they would seek permission from this Court. Subsequently respondent no. 1 died and his legal heirs i.e. present respondent no. 1 (ii) and respondent no. 1 (iii) were 2 substituted in the appeal in the year 1999. It appears that the substituted heirs i.e. Rajendra Singh and Vijenra Singh sold 1.25 Katha of plot no. 721 on 6.8.2002. Hence, an application was filed on behalf of the appellant namely I.A. No. 4262 of 2003 under order 39 Rule 2A for initiating a proceeding of contempt against said substituted respondent no. 1 (ii) and respondent no. 1 (iii). By order dated 13.8.2007, notices were issued to said substituted respondents to show cause as to why proceeding of contempt may not be initiated against them. It appears that the said I.A. No. 4262 of 2003 was separately registered as M.J.C. No. 2032 of 2007. In this M.J.C., the substituted respondent no. 1 (ii) and 1 (iii) appeared and filed show cause. In the show cause, they have stated that since their father was respondent in the appeal and they were not party, therefore, they had no knowledge of the injunction order. After the death of their father, they were substituted. However, they had no knowledge that the 3 injunction order was operating against their father. Hence, because of lack of knowledge, by mistake they have sold the part of plot no. 721. On behalf of the said substituted heirs, learned counsel also gives an undertaking that the said substituted heirs shall not sell any property involved in the suit and appeal in future. Considering the fact that the substituted heirs Rajendra Singh and Vijendra singh were not party in the appeal, and therefore, it may be possible that they had no knowledge of the injunction order which was operating against their father and in view of the above undertaking to this Court, the show cause is accepted and the said proceeding of contempt is dropped. However, it is made clear that the property sold by the said Rajendra Singh and Vijednra singh shall be subject to result of the appeal. The MJC application is thus disposed of. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh , J. )