C.A.C.P. No. 10 of 2007 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.A.C.P. No. 10 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION: 11.8.2009 T.P.Singh Bedi ..........Appellant Versus Suresh Kumar & Others ..........Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. B.S. Bedi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. J.K.Goel, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of learned Single Judge holding that the appellant had violated the order of the Court and undertaking given to the Court. 2. The appellant, an Advocate, claimed to be attorney of defendant- a Rice Mill in suit for recovery of money filed by respondent No.1. The case of the appellant is that he had purchased the rights from the defendant in the property and Power of Attorney was executed in lieu thereof. He had also entered into an agreement to sell the property on which basis there was a further transaction of the said property. Along with the suit for recovery, an application was filed by the plaintiff for attachment before decree under Order 38 Rule 5 of the CPC. The appellant made a C.A.C.P. No. 10 of 2007 (2) statement that he will not sell the property till the next date of hearing. Such a statement continued to be made on various dates. On 24.11.2005 instead of recording his statement that he will not alienate the property, as was being done earlier, it was recorded that he had no objection if stay is extended. Accordingly order extending stay was passed. On 23.11.2005, the appellant executed a Special Power of Attorney in favour of one Pawan Kumar and Pawan Kumar executed a sale deed on the basis of said Power of Attorney. 3. The plaintiff initiated proceedings for contempt. The stand of the appellant was that after 24.11.2005, no undertaking was given and, therefore, alienation did not amount to breach of undertaking. It was further submitted that word “stay extended” was of no effect as stay had never been granted earlier. 4. Learned Single Judge considered the matter with reference to following seven arguments raised on behalf of the appellant:- 1. That there is no undertaking on the date of sale in question; 2. That the judgment relied upon by the petitioner at the time of motion hearing i.e. “Dayal Kaur Versus Rajinder Kaur, 2001(1) R.C.R. (Civil)-393”, is not applicable to the facts of the present case; 3. That, since the suit is not admitted as per Order 33 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code and the application to sue as indigent person is pending, so no order could be made under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, nor the Court has ever passed any order which may satisfy the test of order as defined under Section 2 (14) of the C.P.C.; 4. That the sale has not been effected by respondent C.A.C.P. No. 10 of 2007 (3) No.1, but by Special Power of Attorney on the basis of transaction, prior to the filing of the suit and respondent No.1 has not received any amount thereafter. The sale has been effected against his interest and at his back without the knowledge against the terms of the agreement; 5. That the respondent No.1 has appeared as Attorney for the defendants and was not party to the suit and, therefore, cannot be prosecuted for an act not done by him. 6. That, since there is no willful disobedience of the order, therefore, the provisions of the Act or Order 39 Rule 20A can be attracted. 7. Lastly, the respondent No.1 has in unequivocal terms stated in the written statement that the sale be set- aside. Therefore, no cause remains to invoke any provisions of law for an act of cheating done by the said Attorney. 5. Learned Single Judge held that the appellant had violated the order of the Court and undertaking given to the Court. Further one month's time was given to purge the contempt. Contentions that no undertaking had been given or that suit had not been admitted as per Order 33 Rule 8 of the CPC or that sale has not been effected by the appellant but by Special Power of Attorney on the basis of authority given by the appellant and also that the appellant was not the party to the suit personally were rejected. Relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Rama Narang Versus Ramesh Narang and and another, 2006 (11) S.C.C.-114, it was observed that no distinction could be made between willful violation of consent order or direction given after C.A.C.P. No. 10 of 2007 (4) adjudication. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant has purged the contempt by giving security before the trial Court to meet the claim of the plaintiff in the suit. An affidavit of the appellant has also been filed stating that he did not press the appeal on merits and tendered unconditional apology. 7. In view of the appellant having purged the contempt and having tendered unconditional apology, we are of the view that contempt proceedings be treated to have been closed. 8. The appeal is disposed of. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE August 11, 2009 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No