Final Order 2

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: Back
Daily Status
IN THE COURT OF :COURT 02 ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE
Case No. :NOTICE OF MOTION/0103130/2019
Amrish J. Agarwal And Ors. Vs K. K. Jain And Ors.
Date : 18-07-2026
Business : Advocate Mr. M.K. Tanna for plaintiff is present. Advocate
Ashiwin Badang for defendant no. 13 and 16 is present.
Advocate Swati Panjwani for defendant no. 29A to 29C is
present. Kept back Later on at 12.35 P.M. Advocate Mr. M.K.
Tanna a/w Advocate Rahul Vyas for plaintiff is present.
Advocate Pranali Raut i/b Rahul Singh for defendant no. 8
and 9 is present. Notice of motion no. 3840/2019 and
1340/2017 are regarding disobedience of the order passed in
NM no. 385/1908 preventing the defendants from creating
third party interest or entering into agreement with someone
else, with the allegation that defendant no. 14, in the breach of
the order, executed two deeds with strangers dealing with the
property contrary to the injunction order of the Court. Both
the motions are for detaining the person committing breach of
order in civil prison as per Rule 2A of Order 39 of the C.P.C.
1908 and for striking off of defence. Both the motions were
filed in 2017 and 2019, respectively, and pending the motions
defendant no. 14 died, whose legal heirs i.e. defendants no.
14A to 14D, have been impleaded in the year 2022. Thus, the
person committing the breach of order in the year 2017-2018
was defendant no. 14 and defendants no. 14 A to D are not
party defendants responsible for the breach of order alleged to
have occurred in 2017 and 2019 in the form of execution of
document in favour of stranger contrary to the order.
Furthermore, the act of committing breach i.e. execution of
agreement contrary to order is not such as to be one that can
be comprehended to be a continued act in breach so that the
defendant no. 1A to 1D cannot be said to be the persons /
parties guilty of willful disobedience of the order of the Court.
Although defendant no. 14A was signatory to the said
executed agreements contrary to the terms of order of the
Court, injunction was not binding on her, she not being party
to the suit, in which, order came to be passed. The notices of
motion based upon the disobedience of the order of the Court,
-- 1 of 2 --
therefore, must fail. Hence the order- ORDER 1. Notice of
motion no. 3840/2019 and 1340/2017 stands dismissed.
JUDGE Notice of motion no. 3130/2019 is regarding
disobedience of the order passed in NM no. 385/1908
preventing the defendants from creating third party interest or
entering into agreement with someone else with the allegation
that defendant no. 14, in the breach of the order, executed two
deeds with strangers dealing with the property contrary to the
injunction order of the Court. This motion is for detaining the
persons committing breach of order in civil prison as per Rule
2A of Order 39 of the C.P.C. 1908 and for striking off of
defence. This motion was filed in 2019, and pending the
motion, defendant no. 14 and 32 died, whose legal heirs i.e.
defendants no. 14A to 14D, and defendant no. 32A to F have
been impleaded subsequent to the defaults committed by
them. Thus, the person committing the breach of order in the
year 2017-2018 was defendant no. 14 and neither defendants
no. 14 A to D nor defendants no. 32A to F can be said to be
party defendants responsible for the breach of order alleged to
have occurred in 2017 and 2019 in the form of execution of
documents in favour of strangers, contrary to the order.
Furthermore, the act of committing breach i.e. execution of
agreement contrary to order is not such as to be one that can
be comprehended to be an act, which is continuous breach, for
which, the non parties subsequently impleaded as parties, can
be held responsible so that the defendants no. 14A to D,
defendants no. 32A to F and any of defendants not being party
to the document of transfer / dealing with the property other
than defendant no. 14, respondents cannot be said to be the
persons / parties guilty of willful disobedience of the order of
the Court. Although it has been pointed out that rejoinder to
the reply of respondents mentions certain parties like
defendants no. 13 and 16 to be the persons executing
agreements contrary to the order, this fact is not incorporated
in the notice of motion for granting relief, and the relief,
which is not prayed for in the notice of motion cannot be
granted. The notices of motion based upon the disobedience of
the order of the Court, therefore, must fail. Hence the order-
ORDER 1. Notice of motion no. 3130/2019 stands dismissed.
JUDGE NM no. 3841/2019. Advocate for defendant no. 14 B
seeks time for NM hearing. O- Granted as a last chance.
Matter adjourned to 23.07.2026 for NM hearing.
Nature of Disposal : DISMISSED
Disposal Date : 18-07-2026
COURT 02 ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE
-- 2 of 2 --