1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2056 OF 2009 Smt. Sushilabai Mohanlal Agrawal ..Petitioners Versus Sudhakar Bhanudas Giram and others. .. Respondent. --- Mr. L.B. Pallod, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. S.S. Nirkhee, Advocate for the respondents CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 8th July, 2009. ORAL ORDER :- 1] . By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 5th February, 2009, vide which the application filed by the present respondent/plaintiff for taking action against the petitioner for breach of injunction has been allowed. 2 . The respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff that the sale deed executed on 26th May, 1999 in favour of the present petitioner is a sham and nominal sale deed. It appears that the respondent/plaintiff had also prayed for ad-interim exparte injunction, which was granted by the trial court. It appears that, in spite of grant of injunction, during the pendency of the suit, the petitioner executed a sale deed of the property in question on 11/1/2008. The respondent/plaintiff, therefore, filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2A of C.P.C. for taking action against the petitioner for committing breach of injunction. . The said application was partly allowed. The trial court instead of punishing the petitioner for having committed contempt of the court, has passed an order striking the defence of the present petitioner. Hence, this petition. . Shri Pallod, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an illiterate old lady. She was not properly served and as such, the breach of injunction was not intentional. He, therefore, submits that learned trial court has erred in passing the order striking of the defence of the petitioner. Shri Nirkhee, learned counsel for the respondent plaintiff submits that though the respondent was aware about the order of injunction 3 passed by the trial court, she has willfully disobeyed the said order and as such, the learned trial court has rightly struck off the defence of the petitioner. Perusal of the order impugned reveals that the plaintiff had filed a suit on 13th April, 2007. On 19th April, 2007, an ex-parte ad-interim injunction was granted restricting the petitioner/defendant No.3 from alienating the suit land till her appearance or next date, which was earlier. Though duly served, the petitioner did not appear and as such, the order of injunction came to be confirmed on 5/1/2007. It appears that thereafter the petitioner put her appearance through one Advocate Rathi on her behalf on 3rd September, 2007.It further appears that the court had also earlier passed an order proceeding exparte against the petitioner. On 3rd September, 2007, on the application filed by the present petitioner, the said ex-parte order was set aside and the petitioner was permitted to file a written statement. Subsequently, on 11/1/2008, the sale deed in question has been executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. It is difficult to accept the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner was not served. On 3rd September, 207 her lawyer appeared and also filed an application for setting aside the order and for permission to file written statement. Not only this but the bailiff of the court was examined, who has specifically stated that the present petitioner was duly served with the suit summons. . In that view of the matter, it can not be said that the petitioner was not aware about the order of injunction passed by the learned trial court. 4 As such, it cannot be said that the learned trial court has erred in taking the view that it has taken. The scope of interference in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 and 227 of the constitution of India is very limited. Unless the finding is found to be perverse or impossible, it is not permissible for this court to interfere with the same. The learned trial court has given cogent and sound reasons. Not only this, but it has also taken a lenient view, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is an illiterate lady. Instead of punishing the petitioner for breach of injunction, the learned trial court has only struck off the defence of the petitioner. It also cannot be said that the order which has been passed by the learned trial court is passed without jurisdiction. . In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference. Hence, the writ petition is summarily rejected. grt/ [B.R. GAVAI,J.]