ARUN KUMAR DUTTA, J. ( 1 ) THE Petitioners are represented by their Learned Advocates. There is none to represent any of the Opposite Party-Contemners, who are absent without any step. Heard the Learned Advocate for the Petitioners as such in the absence of the Opposite Party-Contemners. ( 2 ) UPON hearing the Learned Advocate for the Petitioners and perusal of the materials on record it appears that the petitioners had filed an application for Contempt of Court against the Opposite Parties Contemners (hereinafter REFERRED TO as O. P. S.) for wilful and deliberate violation of the order of injunction dated 9th October, 1991 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C. R. No. 3801 of 1991. On the basis of the allegations made therein a Contempt Rule was issued against the Opposite Parties. But the Rule could not be served upon the Opposite Party-Contemner No. 1 Smt. Kamala Pal despite repeated endeavours, who had eventually refused to accept the Rule, as appearing from the Bailiff's Report on record amounting to service upon her. Even so the Rule has not been returned by her. In her absence without any step and in the absence of any Affidavit filed by her, the allegations made against her in the Contempt Application accordingly remain unchallenged and uncontroverted. ( 3 ) IT appears from the materials on record that a Title Suit was filed by the Petitioners against the O. P. No. 1 herein before the City Civil Court at Calcutta for the reliefs prayed for therein, registered as Title Suit No. 684 of 1991, as appearing from the copy of the Plaint, marked Annexure 'a' to the Contempt Application. An application for temporary injunction was filed by the Plaintiffs Petitioners, which having been rejected by the learned Judge, 6th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta, a Revisional Application was preferred by them before this Court, being C. R. No. 3801 of 1991. An application for temporary injunction was filed by the Plaintiffs Petitioners, which having been rejected by the learned Judge, 6th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta, a Revisional Application was preferred by them before this Court, being C. R. No. 3801 of 1991. Kalyanmoy Ganguly, J. , as His Lordship then was, by his Order dated 9th October, 1991 passed therein, while issuing certain directions thereunder, had passed an interim order in terms of the prayers made therein which are set out below :" (B) (i) : Pending hearing of this application stay of all further proceedings in Title Suit No. 684 of 1991 before the learned Judge, VIth Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta be granted till disposal of the Rule : (B) (ii) : Temporary injunction be issued restraining the respondent O. Ps. from dealing with, alienating, transferring, assigning, disposing of and/or parting with the possession of the suit property or any part thereof as described in Annexure 'a' to this petition in any manner whatsoever till disposal of the Rule/application. " ( 4 ) IN terms of the said interim Order dated 9-10-91 passed by this Court the Respondent-Defendant therein, the Opposite Party No. 1 herein, was restrained from dealing with, alienating, transferring, assigning, disposing of and/or parting with possession of the disputed property, or any part thereof, as described in Annexure 'a' to the said Revisional Application, till the disposal of the same. ( 5 ) IT is contended by the Petitioners that the aforesaid injunction Order dated 9-10-91 issued by this Court was duly communicated to the Respondent-Defendant therein, being the Opposite Party Contemner No. 1 herein. But despite due notice and knowledge of the aforesaid injunction Order passed by this Court (on 9-10-91), she (O. P. Contemner No. 1), in deliberate and willful violation thereof, had transferred the disputed property to the Opposite Party No. 2 herein on 4th December, 1991 under a Registered Deed of Conveyance, being No. 16476 for the year 1991, registered on the same very day, giving cause for the instant Contempt Application. ( 6 ) AS already indicated above, the Contemner Opposite Party No. 1, Kemala Pal, despite due service of Contempt Rule upon her, not having appeared before the Court and not having filed any Affidavit there against, the allegations made by the Petitioners in the Contempt Application remain unchallenged and uncontroverted. ( 6 ) AS already indicated above, the Contemner Opposite Party No. 1, Kemala Pal, despite due service of Contempt Rule upon her, not having appeared before the Court and not having filed any Affidavit there against, the allegations made by the Petitioners in the Contempt Application remain unchallenged and uncontroverted. She having transferred the disputed property, as described and detailed in the Schedule to the Plaint in the aforesaid Title Suit No. 684 of 1991 and in the Schedule to the Revisional Application, on 4th December, 1991 in willful and deliberate violation of the injunction order passed by this Court on 9-10-91 in the aforesaid Civil Rule No. 3801 of 1991, is clearly guilty of violation of the aforesaid injunction Order dated 9-10-1991 passed by this Court also amounting to Contempt of Court. She is accordingly liable to be punished therefor. ( 7 ) IT would be pertinent to note in this context that the Opposite Parties Nos. 283 herein were not parties in the aforesaid Title Suit No. 684 of 1991 before the City Civil Court at Calcutta or in the aforesaid Civil Rule No. 3801 of 1991 before this Court. None of them was thus bound by the aforesaid injunction order dated 9-10-91 passed by this Court. Not being parties thereto, none of them can either be said to have violated the aforesaid injunction Order dated 9-10-91. None of them can thus be held guilty of violation of the said injunction order. They could neither be held guilty of Contempt of Court either. The Learned Advocate for the Petitioners had also been constrained to submit during the hearing that they do not feel inclined to proceed against the Opposite Party No. 3 herein as such. The Opposite Parties Nos. 2 and 3 herein could not thus be held guilty of Contempt of Court on any reckonning. The Rule, so far as they are concerned, are liable to be discharged as such. ( 8 ) THE Opposite Party-Contemner No. 1 appears to have transferred the disputed property to the Opposite Party No. 2 on 4-12-1991 in willful and deliberate violation of the aforesaid injunction order of this Court dated 9-10-1991, which was then very much in force. The former (O. P. No. 1) had no right to transfer the disputed property to the latter (O. P. No. 2) in violation of the aforesaid injunction order. The former (O. P. No. 1) had no right to transfer the disputed property to the latter (O. P. No. 2) in violation of the aforesaid injunction order. No title could thus pass by the said transfer dated 4-12-1991, by the Opposite Party No. 1, to the Opposite Party No. 2, during the subsistence of the said injunction order dated 9-10-1991. The opposite party No. 2 could neither have acquired any title to the disputed property by virtue of purchase under the relevant Deed of Conveyance dated 4-12-1991 as such. It would be pertinent, in this context, to refer to the decision of the Chancery Division in Clarke v. Chadburn, (1985) 1 All England Reports, 211 wherein it was held that an act done in willful disobedience of an injunction or Court Order is not only a Contempt of Court, but also an illegal and invalid act which could not therefore, effect change in the rights and liabilities of others. So also held by the Supreme Court in Satyabrata Biswas v. Kalyan Kumar Kisku, AIR 1994 Supreme Court 1837 holding that an order of Injunction or an order for preservation status quo cannot be circumvented by the parties with impunity, who cannot expect the Court to confer its blessings upon the violators. The Party cannot gain an advantage in derogation to the rights of the parties who were litigating originally. That being so, the transfer effected by the Opposite Party-Contemner No. 1 in favour of the Opposite Party No. 2 under the relevant Deed of Conveyance dated 4-12-1991, in violation of the aforesaid Injunction Order dated 9-10-1991 passed by this Court in C. R. No. 3801 of 1991 is clearly unlawful and illegal. ( 9 ) IN view of the facts and circumstances discussed above, the contemner-Opposite Party No. 1 is hereby found to be guilty of deliberate and willful violation of the Injunction Order passed by this Court on 9-10-91 in the aforesaid Civil Rule No. 3801 of 1991 also amounting to Contempt of Court. Since she has not appeared so far, fix 9-1-1996 at 10. 30 a. m. for her appearance before this Court for receiving punishment therefore. Let service be effected upon her at the cost of the Petitioners herein, to be deposited by a fortnight hereof. Since she has not appeared so far, fix 9-1-1996 at 10. 30 a. m. for her appearance before this Court for receiving punishment therefore. Let service be effected upon her at the cost of the Petitioners herein, to be deposited by a fortnight hereof. ( 10 ) IN order to avoid further mischief being caused to the property in question, let the disputed property, as described and detailed in the Schedule to the Plaint in Title Suit No. 684 of 1991 before the City Civil Court at Calcutta, remain attached until further Orders so as to enable the parties to obtain appropriate orders according to law from the City Civil Court in the pending Civil Suit. The Petitioners herein shall be at liberty to take requisite steps in the said Civil Suit pending before the City Civil Court at Calcutta by impleading all necessary parties therein and amending the Plaint and the reliefs prayed for therein for a fair, final and effective adjudication of the dispute between the contending parties in respect of the disputed property once for all after getting the stay granted by the aforesaid order of this Court dated 9-10-91 vacated, according to law, if so advised. ( 11 ) IN view of the discussions above, the Rule, so far as the same relates to the Opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 be discharged, and so far as the same relates to the Opposite Party No. 1 be hereby made absolute. ( 12 ) LET a plain copy of the operative part of this order duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court), be handed over to the Ld. Advocate for the Petitioners, as prayed for. Order accordingly.