[2026:RJ-JP:26378] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 210/2016 URN: CMA / 391U / 2016 Rashpal Yadav S/o Shri Nathuram Yadav, aged about 45 years, R/o Singod Khurd Tehsil, Chomu, District Jaipur. ----Appellant Versus 1. Smt. Suva Devi W/o Shri Prabhu Dayal Saini R/o Gram Khejroli, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur Respondent-Non-applicant-Defendant 2. Prahlad Singh S/o Shri Kan Singh R/o Singod Khurd Tehsil, Chomu, District Jaipur at present residing at Plot No.B-49 Near Jamnapuri Near Roj Public School, Muralipura, Jaipur. 3. Bihari Singh S/o Prahlad Singh R/o Singod Khurd Tehsil, Chomu, District Jaipur at present residing at Plot No.B-49 Near Jamnapuri Near Roj Public School, Muralipura, Jaipur. 4. Gajendra Singh S/o Shri Narayan Singh R/o Singod Khurd Tehsil, Chomu, District Jaipur 5. Ganga Singh S/o Shri Narayan Singh R/o Singod Khurd Tehsil, Chomu, District Jaipur ----Performa Respondents-Non Applicants-Defendants For Appellant(s) : Mr. Akash Agarwal for Mr. Bihari Lal Agarwal For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 13/07/2026 1. By means of instant appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC, a challenge has been made to the order dated 02.11.2015 passed by Additional District Judge, Chomu, dismissing application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC. 2. Heard counsel for appellant and perused the material available on record. 3. It has inter alia been contended that during course of civil suit for specific performance, an injunction order dated [2026:RJ-JP:26378] (2 of 2) [CMA-210/2016] 10.03.2005 was passed restraining defendants not to sell/alienate the suit property, however, in violation to the stay order, defendant No.5 executed a sale deed dated 15.09.2006, hence, he is guilty to flout/disobey the stay order as such be suitably punished for committing disobedience of the stay order of the Civil Court. 4. Learned trial Court, in the order impugned has recorded a finding that it is not proved that stay order dated 10.03.2005 was communicated or ever served properly upon defendant No.5. Learned trial Court found that the stay order was not in the knowledge of defendant No.5, therefore, he may not be held guilty for disobeying the stay order deliberately and knowingly. 5. Such facts findings recorded by the trial Court are based on record and do not suffer from any perversity. Punishing a party for disobeying the order of Court is a serious matter and unless & until the disobey of order of Court is not established by clear and cogent evidence, merely by drawing an inference, no such punishment can be passed. 6. In the case at hand, it has not been held proved that defendant No.5, despite having knowledge of the stay order, disobey the same and executed the sale deed. 7. For the above reasons, impugned order does not warrant interference in the appeal. 8. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of. 9. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. 10. Record of trial Court be sent back. (SUDESH BANSAL),J 53/RONAK JAIMAN