IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No. 1928 of 2011 Girija Nand Paswan son of late Lal Kishun Paswan, resident of Village-Khajpura, Police Station, Gardanibagh, at present Air Port Police Station, District-Patna. ..........Petitioner Versus 1. Gigal Paswan son of late Mahabir Paswan, resident of Village- Khajpura, P.S.-Gadanibagh, District-Patna, Temporarily residing at Village-Saichak Beur, P.S.-Phulwari, District-Patna. 2. Pappu Paswan son of late Arjun Paswan, resident of Village- Khajpura, P.O.-Vetorinory College, Hospital Post Office, P.S.- Gardanibagh, at present Patna Air Port, Post Patna. 3. Dhrub Prasad Murarka, son of late Durga Prasad Murarka, Proprietor of Shree Shyam Distributors (Construction Division) registered office at G-7, Shashi Complex Exhibition Road, Patna. 4. The State of Bihar through Collector of the District, District-Patna. .......Opposite Parties ----------- 08 21.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for initiating a proceeding of contempt against the opposite parties for violating the order dated 11.11.2009, by which opposite party nos. 1 and 2 were restrained from transferring, wasting and damaging the suit land or changing its nature during the pendency of I.A. No. 6364 of 2009 which was filed in S.A. No. 396 of 2009. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner raises five points in this regard. Firstly that opposite party nos. 1 and 2, who were respondent nos. 1 and 2 in the second appeal, have violated the said order by executing a sale deed in favour of opposite party no. 3. The second point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that opposite party nos. 1 and 2 with the help of opposite party no. 3 had 2 started filling work over the suit land bearing Plot No. 928 pertaining to Khata No. 112 situated in Village-Khajpura, Patna to construct a multi- storey building over it. The third point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that from the recital of the sale deed the intention of the parties would be apparent that they were trying to somehow construct a multi-storey building over it. The fourth point raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that joint property in which the families of three brothers are living cannot be sold to a stranger. The fifth point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said transfer was not as per the share of the parties. 4. So far the injunction order is concerned, it was passed on 11.11.2009 and the sale deed in question was executed by opposite party nos. 1 and 2 in favour of opposite party no. 3, who was not party to the second appeal, on 04.07.2009 and was registered on 10.09.2009 and both the dates are prior to the date of the order dated 11.11.2009 and hence there was clearly no violation of the said order. 5. So far the second point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, filling of land cannot be legally presumed to be wasting, damaging or changing the suit land and there is nothing to show that any building has been constructed by opposite party nos. 1 and 2 after the aforesaid order was passed. 6. So far the third point is concerned, the recital and intention in the sale deed which was executed and registered prior to the order of this Court dated 11.11.2009, cannot legally amount to be any violation of the said order. 3 7. So far the fourth and fifth points with respect to sale to a stranger and transfer in excess of the share is concerned, this matter cannot be looked into in contempt matter and the petitioner will be at liberty to raise it in the second appeal which he has filed after losing before both the learned Courts below. 8. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, no case of contempt being made out, this petition is dismissed. Safik (S.N. Hussain, J.)