S.P. Goyal, J. - (1.)This judgment will dispose of three connected Civil Revision Petitions No. 2331 of 1983, 2344 and 2345 of 1983 which are directed against a common order of the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, dated Aug. 17, 1983.
(2.)In a suit filed by Gurdarshan Singh, ad interim injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from transferring the possession and defendants No. 2 and 3 from alienating the house in dispute was passed on Feb. 26, 1977. During the pendency of the suit, Rachhpal Singh and Swaran Singh defendants executed the sale deed in favour of Jaswant Singh on June 27, 1980. Consequently, Gurdarshan Singh filed an application under Order 39, Rule 2-A, Civil Procedure Code, for initiating contempt proceedings against the vendors and the vendee. Before that application was disposed of he withdrew his suit on Sept. 25, 1980 the same having become infructuous. The trial Court held Swaran Singh and Jaswant Singh guilty of the contempt of Court and committed them to civil imprisonment for one month. Jaswant Singh, however, was held to have not violated the order. Three appeals were filed against the order of the trial Court two by Swaran Singh and Rachhpal Singh against their conviction and the third by Gurdarshan Singh against Jaswant Singh. The appeal filed by Gurdarshan Singh was allowed and Jaswant Singh was also committed to Civil imprisonment for one month and the other appeals were dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, by the impugned order. Hence these three petitions by the contemners.
(3.)The legality of the impugned order has been challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioners primarily on the ground that no order under the said Rule 2-A Could be passed when the ad interim injunction stated to have been violated was no more in existence. Reliance for this submission was placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in The State of Bihar Vs. Rani Sonabati Kumari (supra). A contrary view had been taken by Harbans Lal, J. in M/s. Bharaj Manufacturing Co. (Regd) Vs. Jai Pal (supra) without noticing the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court. The matter otherwise also being of public importance, I referred the same to a Division Bench for authoritative pronouncement. This is how these cases have been laid before us.