COMMON JUDGMENT Per P.D. DINAKARAN, J. Contempt Appeal No. 1 of 2006 is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 12.9.2005, made in Contempt Petition No. 695 of 2002, preferred by one S.V.Doraisamy, who also preferred Contempt Appeal SR. No. 19742 of 2006 against the final order dated 31.1.2006, made in Contempt Petition No. 695 of 2002 under the following facts and circumstances of the case. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are arrayed as per their rank in the contempt petition. 3. The petitioner in the Contempt Petition namely S.V.Doraisamy filed revision petitions in C.R.P. Nos. 2912 and 2913 of 2000 against the common order dated 7.9.2000 made in C.M.A. Nos. 6 and 5 of 2000 respectively on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee, confirming the order of dismissal of I.A.Nos.325 and 326 of 1999 dated 24.1.2000, filed for injunction in O.S. No. 92 of 1999 on the file of learned District Munsif, Tambaram, filed by the petitioner in the contempt petition (revision petitioner). 4. The petitioner in the contempt petition (revision petitioner) filed the said suit No. 92 of 1999 on the file of District Munsif, Tambaram, to declare that the plaintiff therein is the power of attorney holder of the defendants therein, who are nonetheless the respondents in the contempt petition, with regard to a sale transaction relating to the ‘B’ schedule suit property. Pending suit, there was an order of injunction in I.A. No. 326 of 1999, which gave rise for filing appeals in C.M.As and thereafter C.R.Ps. referred to above. 5. While admitting the revision petitions, the learned single Judge granted interim injunction in favour of the contempt petitioner (revision petitioner) restraining the defendants in the suit and the respondents in the revision petitions from alienating or encumbering any plot mentioned in the suit property as well as for peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. Both the revision petitions were disposed of by a common order dated 23.8.2001, the relevant portion of which reads as follows: ""27. Therefore, I am inclined to hold that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case and balance of convenience and therefore, is entitled to maintain status quo and the approach of the Courts below is not only perverse, but also opposed to accepted rules of grant of interim orders and amounts to erroneous exercise of jurisdiction. 28..... 29..... 30. Therefore, I am inclined to hold that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case and balance of convenience and therefore, is entitled to maintain status quo and the approach of the Courts below is not only perverse, but also opposed to accepted rules of grant of interim orders and amounts to erroneous exercise of jurisdiction. 28..... 29..... 30. As far as I.A.No.326 of 1999 is concerned, seeking to restrain the defendants from alienating the property I fail to understand how the said petition could have been rejected. It is settled proposition of law that any transaction pendete lite would be invalid in law and therefore, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and the rights of innocent third parties being involved, it is always advisable to grant such orders or at least to require the concerned parties to give an undertaking that they will not alienate or encumber the property. No such undertakings had been insisted by the Courts below from the defendants when the Courts have decided to reject the interlocutory relief as prayed for by the plaintiff. 31..... 32. In the result, both the revision petitions are allowed. Considering that there appears to be the involvement of rights of several parties, the trial Court is directed to take up the suit itself and to dispose of the same within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The defendants are directed to file their written statement without any delay. It is also made clear that the trial Court in dealing with the merits of the suit, will not be in any manner be influenced by any of the observations contained in this judgment which have been made only in the context of prima facie case and the entitlement of the plaintiff for the interlocutory relief. No costs. Consequently, connected CMPs are closed as closed as unnecessary."" 6. Complaining that in spite of the said order dated 23.8.2001, made in C.R.P. Nos. 2912 and 2913 of 2000, the defendants in the suit and the respondents in the revision petitions have entered into sale agreements and started alienating the suit property and hence, the revision petitioner filed the above contempt petition. The learned single Judge, after holding a detailed enquiry, passed an interim order dated 12.9.2005 in the contempt petition, the relevant portion of which reads as follows: ""17. The learned single Judge, after holding a detailed enquiry, passed an interim order dated 12.9.2005 in the contempt petition, the relevant portion of which reads as follows: ""17. It has to be borne in mind that alleged transfer, even if true, is pendente lite and hence, invalid and not enforceable even assuming that they are bona fide purchasers. The vendors, Respondents 1 to 3, have taken a clear stand that they had cancelled the power of attorney and that they were not aware of the sale and hence, the transfer was not complete. The power of attorney says that he did it in a confused state of mind. Therefore, they cannot have any objection for the restoration of status quo ante, if what they say are true. As far as the purchasers are concerned, there is ample evidence to show about their collusion and deliberate violation of the orders of the Court under the highhanded leadership of the ninth respondent. It is up to the said contemners to take this opportunity offered by this Court and to undo the injustice and unlawful conduct on their part, failing which, this contempt petition will have to be disposed of on merits. This Court is not interested in punishing the respondents if they act in a responsible manner at least now and show their bona fides. 18. With the result, I am inclined to pass the following order: (i) Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to execute a cancellation deed of all the sale deeds executed on their behalf and fourth respondent, the power of attorney, will also join the execution of the cancellation, he being the executant of the documents, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; (ii) Possession of properties, if any, remaining with the respondents, shall be restored back to the petitioner within the said period; (iii) Registry is directed to post the contempt petition for hearing before the appropriate Court during the, first week of December, 2005; (iv) If the directions in paragraphs (i) and (ii) above are not complied with, the petitioner is free to take steps to have the contempt petition listed for further hearing. 7. 7. It is obvious from the above order that the learned single Judge prima facie satisfied that the respondents in the contempt petition had colluded and deliberately violated the orders of this Court under the highhanded leadership of the police and however taking a lenient view that this Court was not interested to punish the respondents, directed Respondents 1 to 3 to execute a cancellation deed of all the sale deeds executed on their behalf. 8. Against the said order, Respondents 1 and 2 have filed Contempt Appeal No. 1 of 2006 and also obtained an order of interim stay on 30.1.2006 in C.M.P. No. 1519 of 2006. 9. The above contempt petition came thereafter before another learned single Judge, as the learned single Judge, who passed the earlier order dated 12.9.2005, retired by then, and same was closed by an order dated 31.1.2006, which reads as follows: “It is submitted that as against the order dated 12.9.2005 made in this contempt petition, a contempt appeal has been filed in Contempt Appeal No. 1 of 2006 and in that appeal, a Division Bench of this Court granted stay of the operation of the order dated 12.9.2005 on 30.1.2006. 2. In view of the order dated 30.1.2006 granting stay of the operation of the order dated 12.9.2005, the contempt petition for deliberate disobedience of the order dated 23.8.2001 cannot be maintained. 3. Hence, the contempt petition is closed. No costs.” 10. From the above order dated 31.1.2006, it is clear that the contempt petition came to be closed mainly due to the pendency of the contempt appeal as Respondents 1 and 3 in the contempt petition had already preferred Contempt Appeal No. 1 of 2006 and also got interim stay by order dated 30.1.2006. Aggrieved over the closure of the contempt petition, the contempt petitioner has also preferred Contempt Appeal Sr. No. 19742 of 2006. But, the Registry raised an objection as to the maintainability of the same referring to Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act which reads as follows: “Appeals: An appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of the High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt.” Hence both Contempt Appeal No.1 of 2006 and Contempt Appeal SR. No. 19742 of 2006 are taken for joint hearing. 11. Mr. No. 19742 of 2006 are taken for joint hearing. 11. Mr. S. Shanmugasundaram, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Contempt Appeal No.1 of 2006, who are nonetheless Respondents 1 and 3 in the contempt petition, contends that the directions of the learned single Judge in the order dated 12.9.2005 are contrary to law, as what is relevant is the date of execution, but not the date of registration and since the sale deeds in question were executed much earlier to the date of order of injunction, there is no need for a direction to execute a cancellation deed of the sale deeds executed prior to the order of injunction, as no sale deed was executed under the teeth of the order of injunction made in C.R.P. Nos. 2912 and 2913 of 2000. 12. On the other hand, Mr. M.K. Hidayatullah, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent in the contempt appeal, who is nonetheless the petitioner in the contempt petition (revision petitioner), submits that Contempt Appeal No. 1 of 2006 is also not maintainable in view of Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, relied on by the Registry, referred to above. 13. In our considered opinion, in view of Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, relied on by the Registry, both the appeals are not maintainable in law. That apart, with regard to the contention made on behalf of the appellants in Contempt Appeal No. 1 of 2006 that the date of execution of the sale deed is relevant, but not the date of registration and since the sale deeds were executed prior to the date of order of injunction, but not under the teeth of the order of injunction granted in C.R.P. Nos. 2912 and 2913 of 2000, with the risk of repetition, we are obliged to refer Paragraphs 27 and 30 of the order dated 23.8.2001 made in C.R.P. Nos. 2912 and 2913 of 2000. “27. Therefore, I am inclined to hold that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case and balance of convenience and therefore, is entitled to maintain status quo and the approach of the Courts below is not only perverse, but also opposed to accepted rules of grant of interim orders and amounts to erroneous exercise of jurisdiction. 28. ... 28..... 30. 28. ... 28..... 30. As far as I. A. No. 326 of 1999 is concerned, seeking to restrain the defendants from alienating the property I fail to understand how the said petition could have been rejected. It is settled proposition of law that any transaction pendente lite would be invalid in law and therefore, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and the rights of innocent third parties being involved, it is always advisable to grant such orders or at least to require the concerned parties to give an undertaking that they will not alienate or encumber the property. No such undertakings had been insisted by the Courts below from the defendants when the Courts have decided to reject the interlocutory relief as prayed for by the plaintiff.” 14. In the abovesaid order, the learned single Judge held that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the revision petitioner and the plaintiff in the suit and any transaction made during the pendency of the suit is hit by the doctrine of pendente lite (sic) and if that be so, whether the appellants in the contempt appeal execute cancellation deed or not, the validity of those transactions entered into by the appellants is to be tested only under the doctrine of pendente lite, in a manner known to law. Therefore, there is no necessity to go into that contention in these appeals, particularly when the first appeal in A.S. No. 83 of 2005 or the file of Principal Sub-Court, Chingleput, is pending against the judgment and decree in O.S No. 92 of 1999 on the file of District Munsif, Tambaram, which got disposed of on 8.12.2004, pursuant to the order in the revision petitions. Accordingly, Contempt Appeal No. 1 is dismissed. In so far as Con. A.SR. No. 19742 of 2006 is concerned, the objection raised by the Registry is sustained.