1969 (3) TMI 97

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....naik, Advs. ORDER G.K. Mishra, J. 1. The plaintiffs' suit was one for partition claiming 1/3rd interest in the total property. Defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 3 each claim 1/3rd interest. It appears that defendant No. 1 made indiscriminate transfers. The plaintiffs accordingly asked for an order of injunction to restrain the parties not to make any pendente lite transfers. On 13-5-64 the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to the tenants to harvest the crop. The order does not deal with the other prayer regarding addition of the petitioners as defendants. Against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, this Civil Revision has been filed. 2. Mr. Misra does not assail the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge refusing permission to the bhag tenants of the petitioners for harvesting the paddy. The only point ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion. The question for consideration is whether the sale in violation of the injunction order is a nullity. If it is a nullity and void, the sale has no existence and the petitioners would have no right to be impleaded in the suit. If, on the other hand, the sale is not a nullity, an interest was created in favour of the petitioners by the sale even though it may ultimately be found that either de....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....orceable under the attachment. The same principle has no application to an injunction order. The injunction order is not a stay order. The matter has been fully discussed in AIR 1938 Lah 220 Lal Chand v. Sohan Lal. His Lordship observed that the effect of non-compliance with an injunction issued under Order 30, Rule 1 is to make the offender liable to the punishment prescribed in Order 39, Rule 2 ....