Sat Pal, J. ( 1 ) THIS application has been fid on behalf of the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 2a read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code ). In this application it has been prayed that the defendant be punished for deliberate and wilful disobedience of the injunction granted by this Court on 18. 9. 86 in IA 4820/86 and properties of defendants 1,3,4,5 and 6 be attached and the defendants further be directed to make restitution of the properties. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff s are the minor childrens of the defendant No. l and they arc under the care and custody of their mother Suit. Subhag (a) Smt. Nishi. The plaintiffs have Filed the present suit for partition, declaratiosn and injunction in respect of various properties mentioned in the plaint and which are alleged to have been purchased with the funds provided by the joint Hindu family comprising of Gokul Chand (deceased), Sh. Himmat Rum (defendant No. l), the mother of the plaintiffs Smt. Subhag and other family members. Alongwith the plaint the plaintiffs have filed an a. pplication hearing No. 1a 4820/86 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2-read with Section 151 of the Code. This application came up for hearing on 18lh September, 1986 and the following orders were passed :- "this I. A. has been tiled on behalf of minor plaintiffs underorder 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code in which it has been requested that defendants should be restrained from transferring, alienating or otherwise parting with possession of the suit premises. Notice be issued to the defendants for 8th December,. 1986. Keeping in view the fact that plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 are minors, ad-interim injunction, as prayed for, is granted till further orders. " ( 3 ) ON 24th May, 1988 the statement of the learned counsel for defendants without oath and defendant No. l on oath was recorded. Notice be issued to the defendants for 8th December,. 1986. Keeping in view the fact that plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 are minors, ad-interim injunction, as prayed for, is granted till further orders. " ( 3 ) ON 24th May, 1988 the statement of the learned counsel for defendants without oath and defendant No. l on oath was recorded. The said statement reads as follows :- "even though the properties in respect whereof restraint order was sought by the plaintiffs arc self acquired properly of the defendants, nonetheless I myself and on behalf of other defendants undertake not to sell, transfer or part with possession of the suit properties until the permission of this Court has been previously obtained by us. Inview there of the I. A. may be filed. We will abide by this undertaking. " ( 4 ) THE present application has been tiled alleging therein that the defendants have violated the orders passed by this Court on 18th September, 1986 and the undertaing given by defendant No. 1 on his own behalf and on behalf of other defendants on 24th May, 1988. ( 5 ) MS. Pinki Anand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs submitted that after the said undertaking was given by the defendant No. 1, the defendants have executed a deed of family settlement dated 30th September, 1988 by which the defendant No. 1 released all his rights, titles and interest in respect of property No. E-85, NDSE. Part-I, New Delhi in favour of defendant No. 2 and one Ramesh Kumar who is not a parly to this suit. Further by this deed of family settlement, defendants No. 1,5,6 and 4 have relinquished their rights in respect of shop No-603/2, Central Road Jangpura, Bhogal,new Delhi in favour of defendant No. 2. By the same deed of family settlement, the partnership business under the name and style of M/s. Selection House was dissolved and defendants 4,1 and 6 retired from the partnership, defendant No. 2 relin- quished his rights in respect of Shop No. 42, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi in favour of defendant No. 3 and partnership of M/s. Panjab Silk Store was dissolved and defendant No. 3 as well as Shri Harish Kumar retired in respect of the Shop N0. 49, Masjid Road, Jangpura, Bhogal, New Delhi and F-34, East of Kailash, New Delhi. 49, Masjid Road, Jangpura, Bhogal, New Delhi and F-34, East of Kailash, New Delhi. The learned counsel, therefore, contended that by the aforesaid deed of family settlement, the defendants have transferred various properties inter se and one of the property has been transferred in favour of Shri Ramesh Kumar who is not even party to this suit and as such the defendants have wilfully disobeyed the injunction granted by this Court vide orders dated 18th September, 1986 and have also violated the undertaking given by the defendant No. 1 on his own behalf as wells on behalf of the other defendants on 24th May, 1988. She, therefore, submitted that the defendants should be punished under Order 39 Rule 2 (A) of the Code. ( 6 ) MR. Sikri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants, however, submitted that none of the defendants hiis disobeyed the orders passed by this Court on 18. 9. 86 nor anyone of them has violated the undertaking given by defendant No. l on 24th May, 1988. The learned counsel submitted that even according to the averments made in the plaint, the suit for partition of the plaintiffs is in respect of properties which are alleged to have been purchased with the funds provided by the joint hindu family comprising of Gokul Chand (deceased), defendant No. 1 and the mother of the plaintiffs. He further submitted that Ramesh Kumar is also one of the members of the said alleged HUF and none of the properties mentioned in para 4 of the application have been transferred or alienated, in favour of any outsider. He also drew my attention to the deed of family settlement dated 30th September, 1988 wherein it has been slated that the parties had entered into anoral settlement in May, 1986 and the terms of the said oral settlement were reiterated in a written document i. e. deed of family settlement dated 30th September, 1988. The learned counsel, therefore, contended that the alleged transfer of properties in favour of defendants inter se and Ramesh Kumar who is also a member of the alleged HUF was pursuant to the oral settlement of May, 1986 which was prior to the order dated 18th September, 1986 passed by this Court and the undertaking given by defendant No. 1 on 24th May, 1988. ( 7 ) I have given my thoughtful considerillion to the submissions made by the the learned counsel for the parties find have perused the records. From the deed of family settlement dated 30th September, 1988 I find that this document was signed pursunt to oral settlement arrived at between the parties sometime in May, 1986. The transfer of rights in various properties mentioned in para 4 of the application is in pursuance of alleged oral settlement arrived at between the parties in May, 1986 and the terms of which were converted into a written document vide deed of family settlement dated 30th May, 1988. Since the alleged oral settlement was arrived at prior to 18th September, 1986 when the injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiffs, and was also prior to 24th May, 1988 when defendant No. 1 has given an undertaking on his own behalf and on behalf of the defendants, I am of the view that the defendants are not guilty of disobedience of the order dated 18th September, 1986 passed by this Court and nor they had violated the undertaking given on 24th May, 1988. However, since the deed of family settlement (which is alleged to be in pursuance of oral settlement of May, 1986) has been signed after the injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiffs and also after the undertaking was given by the defendant No. 1, I direct that the transfer of the properties or relinquishment of rights based on this deed of family settlement as mentioned in para 4 of the application, shall be subject to the decision in the present suit. I further direct the learned counsel for the defendants to file an undertaking from Ramesh Kumar that the properties transferred in his favour pursuant to the aforesaid deed of family settlement shall be- subject to the decision in this suit. The said undertaking should be filed within two weeks. With these directions the application stands disposed of.