JUDGMENT : S.R. Brahmbhatt The applicants, who happen to be the original respondents in First Appeal No. 719 of 2012, have taken out this application for appropriate directions and orders under the provisions of Order 39, Rule 2 A and other provisions of CPC with following prayers: (A) Your Lordships be pleased to initiate appropriate proceedings against the respondents no. 1 to 4 and their Power of Attorney Holder, Jamila Ibrahim Dadi Patel under the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act, and under the provisions of Order 39, Rule 2 A and others of Code of Civil Procedure for their deliberate and willful breach of the order dated 14.3.2012 passed by this Court in Civil Application No. 2975/2012 in First Appeal No. 719/2012. (B) Your Lordship be further pleased to direct the respondents to restore the possession of title of the portion of land in question by cancelling the illegally executed sale deed dated 24.6.2014. (C) Your Lordship be pleased to pass appropriate orders for detaining a person in civil prison who has committed disobedience of the order passed by this Court. 2. The facts, in brief, leading to filing of this application deserve to be set out as under: 2.1 The applicants were constrained to file Civil Suit being Special Civil Suit No. 8/2007 in the Court of Civil Judge (SD) Gandevi for appropriate relief and specific performance as the suit land was agreed to be sold to the applicants for consideration of Rs. 21,00,786/-. Out of the said amount, Rs. 5,00,000/- has been paid on 20.5.2005 and thereafter, Rs. 5,00,786/- has been paid, and remaining amount was to be paid on or before 31.1.2006 and the possession was handed over on 20.5.2005. The sale-deed was not being executed and the suit was filed as stated above. The same was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs – present applicants vide judgment and order dated 17.10.2011, in which, the court directed that the original defendants no. 1 to 4 shall accept the remaining consideration of Rs. 11,00,000/- and execute the sale document in favour of the plaintiffs within one month from the date of the order, and further restrained the defendants no. 1 to 4 from alienating the land in question in any manner permanently. 1 to 4 shall accept the remaining consideration of Rs. 11,00,000/- and execute the sale document in favour of the plaintiffs within one month from the date of the order, and further restrained the defendants no. 1 to 4 from alienating the land in question in any manner permanently. This judgment and order came to be assailed by the aggrieved defendants by way of First Appeal being First Appeal No. 719 of 2012, in which, on 14.3.2012, this Court has passed the order as under: "RULE, returnable on 28th MARCH, 2012. Mr. Mehta, learned Advocate, waives notice of rule on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 3 and 4. DIRECT SERVICE qua rest of the respondents is permitted. By way of ad-interim relief, the execution, operation and implementation of the impugned judgment and decree is STAYED. It is, further provided that both the sides shall maintain STATUS-QUO in respect of the ownership and possession of the property in question." 3. The First Appeal was filed through the power of attorney holder of the defendant being Jamila Ibrahim Dadi Patel. The said power of attorney holder in disregard to the order dated 14.3.2012 passed in First Appeal No. 719 of 2012, executed sale-deed on 24.6.2014, hence, the applicants had filed the present application for seeking the reliefs as mentioned herein above. 4. Learned advocate Mr. A.D. Desai for the original appellants does not appear for the original appellants as can be seen from the order dated 19.6.2015. Shri Raval learned advocate for the opponents in this application has submitted that he appears for the respondents in this application and he has not been given instructions to appear in the main First Appeal as he has not replaced Mr. Desai, so far as the First Appeal is concerned. 5. The power of attorney holder filed affidavit on behalf of Ahmed Hussan Lunat – respondent no. 1 herein, which deserves to be reproduced verbatim as under: "I, Jamila Ibrahim Dadi Patel, Female, aged about 40 years, Occu. Household & Agriculturist, residing at & Post Lajpur, Chagra Faliya, Tal. Choryasi, Dist. Surat, do hereby solemnly state and affirm on oath as under: 1. I am holding power of Attorney of all respondents above named. 2. I am directed file undertaking in this Civil application is as under: (a) I apologize this High court for committing breach of order/stay given in Civil Application No. 2975/2012. Choryasi, Dist. Surat, do hereby solemnly state and affirm on oath as under: 1. I am holding power of Attorney of all respondents above named. 2. I am directed file undertaking in this Civil application is as under: (a) I apologize this High court for committing breach of order/stay given in Civil Application No. 2975/2012. It was due to my mistake in understanding nature of order/stay due to lack of my knowledge and understanding. I apologize unconditionally for the said mistake committed by me, and request the Honourable High Court to drop further proceedings in this Civil Application. (b) I also undertake to reverse the sale Deed No. 140-6/2014 executed by me on 24.6.2014 in consultation with Purchaser in the said sale-deed. (c) I request this Honourable High Court that the purchaser in the said Sale Deed are residing in U.K., it may take some time in convincing them and get their present or through their Power of Attorney in India. I request this Honourable High Court that I will bona fidely attempt to comply with undertaking if I am given time upto 1.3.2016. 3. I once again apologize unconditionally before Honourable High Court for the mistake committed by me. I state that I am filing this undertaking without coming under any influence fear and misunderstanding, and I have stated facts in this undertaking bona fidely." 6. Thus, the breach of the order is sought to be explained by misunderstanding on the part of the Power of Attorney holder. In other words, it can well be said that the averments made in this application are not been disputed so far as the execution of the sale deed of the land in question is concerned. The defence is put forward in respect of the soo called misunderstanding of the Power of Attorney holder who executed the sale deed on behalf of the respondents in favour of one Shri Abdul Ibrahim Dadi Patel, is said to have been the person set up for defaulting Court's order and over-reach the process. The sale-deed of the land in question is executed for consideration of Rs. 4,98,000/- on 24.6.2014, the land which was agreed to be sold for Rs. 21 lakhs and odd amount, in the year 2005. 7. The sale-deed of the land in question is executed for consideration of Rs. 4,98,000/- on 24.6.2014, the land which was agreed to be sold for Rs. 21 lakhs and odd amount, in the year 2005. 7. The Power of Attorney holder has also filed one more affidavit, which also requires to be reproduced as under: "I, AHMAD HASSEN LUNAT, AGE ADULT, OCCUPATION; BUSINESS, RESIDING AT ABHETA, TA. GANDEVI, AT PRESENT RESIDING AT BOKSBURG, TRANSWAL, SOUTH AFRICA, THROUGH HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY JAMILA IBRAHIM DADI PATEL, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION; HOUSEHOLD AND AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT 7 POST; LAJPORE, GHAGRA FALAIYA, TALUKA CHORYASI, DIST. SURAT, do hereby solemnly affirm on oath as under: 1. The Respondent No. 1 beg to submit humbly that the fact of violation of this Hon. High Courts interim direction/order passed in Civil Application No. 2975/2012 has occurred due to sheer misunderstanding and confusion on part of the Power of Attorney holder they have appointed in this subject matter. 2. There has been a misunderstanding and confusion regarding description of the properties covered under the said interim order/direction passed by this Hon. High Court. The respondents hold various holdings in lands situated nearby the disputed land the Power of Attorney is given for their entire holdings in lands standing in their name. 3. With due respect to the above mentioned interim direction/order passed by this Hon. High Court, the Power of Attorney holder is a lady having very less knowledge regarding their entries and description of property and in various revenue records held by the Respondents above named as well as the situation and holdings in property. There are many holdings for which she is given Power of Attorney and specifically two survey nos. 388 and 688 have created confusion in mind of the Power of Attorney Holder. The Power of Attorney is also a patient of mental depression and she has to take medicines of heavy dose when she suffers from such situation. Due to her such mental position and situation her sense of understanding has been affected. SO, it is humbly stated that the Power of Attorney holder has no such intention to dishonour or disregard the Hon. High Court's order and this mistake has occurred under such specific circumstances. For which, the Power of Attorney's conduct may be condoned. Due to her such mental position and situation her sense of understanding has been affected. SO, it is humbly stated that the Power of Attorney holder has no such intention to dishonour or disregard the Hon. High Court's order and this mistake has occurred under such specific circumstances. For which, the Power of Attorney's conduct may be condoned. I state that whatever is declared herein above is true to the best of my knowledge and I believe the same to be correct." 8. At this stage, it is required to be noted that time and again the court observed that the sale-deed which was executed in disregard to the order of this Court passed in Civil Application No. 2975 of 2012 in First Appeal No. 719 of 2012 on 14.3.2012 may be reversed by executing the proper sale deed, but some how the other, that opportunity is deliberately not accepted and opted for. As a result thereof, the court was constrained to take up the matter in view of the persistent requital showed by all the concerned including the power of attorney holder. 9. Learned advocate Mr. Mehta appearing for the applicants has placed heavy reliance upon the observation of this court in the case of Nareshbhai Hathising Shah v. Dinaben Jitendrabhai Thakar, reported in 2014 JX (Guj) 188 and invited court's attention to the observations of the Bench in paras 1, 4, 4.6, 5.1 and 11. They read as under: [1.0] At the outset it is required to be noted that present case is a glaring example of taking the interim order/injunction granted by the High Court and selling the land in absolute breach of the injunction granted by this Court and it shows that the concerned opponents more particularly opponent No. 11 has no respect of the Court and the Court's order and as such the opponent No. 11 has changed the story/stand from time to time and as such played game with the Court and the court proceedings. [4.0] Shri Shalin Mehta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants has submitted that as such the opponent No. 11 herein has admitted that the transaction/sale deed dated 22.11.2012 executed by opponent No. 6 as his power of attorney and in favour of opponent Nos. [4.0] Shri Shalin Mehta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants has submitted that as such the opponent No. 11 herein has admitted that the transaction/sale deed dated 22.11.2012 executed by opponent No. 6 as his power of attorney and in favour of opponent Nos. 1 to 5 herein is in breach of the injunction/interim order passed by this Court dated 06.10.2010 passed in Civil Application No. 4816/2008 in First Appeal No. 1996/2008. It is further submitted that even the opponent No. 11 more than once and in different affidavits filed by him in the present proceedings has candidly stated on affidavit/oath that he is purging the contempt and/or he wants to purge the contempt. It is submitted that despite the above neither opponent No. 11 is purging the contempt nor reversing the transaction which is in breach of the injunction nor even depositing the amount of sale consideration which is received by him as stated in the sale deed executed in favour of opponent Nos. 1 to 5. [4.6] It is further submitted by Shri Mehta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants that as such all efforts are made by the opponents more particularly opponent Nos. 1 to 6 and opponent No. 11 to delay the present proceedings, one after another false promises have been given to this Court as well as the application/s have been filed. Relying upon the following decisions of this Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is requested to take a serious view in the matter and take strict action against opponent Nos. 1 to 6 and 11 under the Contempt of Courts Act and/or for breach of injunction under Order 39, Rule 2 (A) of the CPC and suitably punish them and also impose the heavy cost upon them and also to quash and set aside the sale deed dated 22.11.2012 executed in favour of opponent Nos. 1 to 5 herein which is absolutely in breach of injunction/interim order passed by this Court and/or direct the concerned opponents to reverse the said transaction/sale deed. [5.1] He has stated at the bar and candidly admitted that as such a registered sale deed executed in favour of opponent Nos. 1 to 5 herein which is absolutely in breach of injunction/interim order passed by this Court and/or direct the concerned opponents to reverse the said transaction/sale deed. [5.1] He has stated at the bar and candidly admitted that as such a registered sale deed executed in favour of opponent Nos. 1 to 5 is in teeth and in breach of interim order/injunction passed by this Court in Civil Application No. 4816/2008 and that he has no legs to stand and he wants to purge the contempt. He has further stated that the amount of sale consideration which is received is spent and it is not possible for him to manage for the huge amount of Rs.7,97,32,600/. It is submitted that the opponent No. 11 is desirous of even reversing the transaction/sale deed which has been executed in favour of opponent Nos.1 to 5 by repaying the entire amount of sale consideration. He has stated at the Bar that opponent No. 11 is desirous to pay Rs.65 lacs upfront and the balance amount of sale consideration by instalments. He has further stated that for the remaining sale consideration of Rs. 6,97,32,600/his client has come with 14 different cheques upto month of June 2014, in favour of opponent No. 2 herein. It is submitted that therefore considering the last offer made by opponent No. 11 herein in his last affidavit dated 05.03.2014, it is requested to accept the unconditional apology tendered by his client and to drop the present proceedings and not to punish them. Making above submissions and above request, it is requested to drop the present proceedings. [11.0] Before considering the merits of the case on hand, firstly, the law on the Contempt of Courts is required to be considered and dealt with. [11.1] In the case of Arundhati Roy v. State of Gujarat reported in 2002(2) GLH 372 , in paras 1 to 3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed and held as under: "1. 'Rule of Law' is the basic rule of governance of any civilised democratic polity. Our Constitutional scheme is based upon the concept of Rule of Law which we have adopted and given to ourselves. Everyone, whether individually or collectively is unquestionably under the supremacy of law. Whoever the person may be, however high he or she is, no-one is above the law notwithstanding how powerful and how rich he or she may be. Our Constitutional scheme is based upon the concept of Rule of Law which we have adopted and given to ourselves. Everyone, whether individually or collectively is unquestionably under the supremacy of law. Whoever the person may be, however high he or she is, no-one is above the law notwithstanding how powerful and how rich he or she may be. For achieving the establishment of the rule of law, the Constitution has assigned the special task to the judiciary in the country. It is only through the courts that the rule of law unfolds its contents and establishes its concept. For the judiciary to perform its duties and functions effectively and true to the spirit with which it is sacredly entrusted, the dignity and authority of the courts have to be respected and protected at all costs. After more than half a century of independence, the judiciary in the country is under a constant threat and being endangered from within and without. The need of the time is of restoring confidence amongst the people for the independence of judiciary. Its impartiality and the glory of law has to be maintained, protected and strengthened. The confidence in the courts of justice, which the people possess, cannot, in any way, be allowed to be tarnished, diminished or wiped out by contumacious behaviour of any person. The only weapon of protecting itself from the onslaught to the institution is the long hand of contempt of court left in the armoury of judicial repository which, when needed, can reach any neck howsoever high or far away it may be. In Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra (the alleged contemner) [ AIR 1995 SC 2348 ] this Court reiterated the position of law relating to the powers of contempt and opined that the judiciary is not only the guardian of the rule of law and third pillar but in fact the central pillar of a democratic State. If the judiciary is to perform its duties and functions effectively and true to the spirit with which they are sacredly entrusted to it, the dignity and authority of the courts have to be respected and protected at all costs. Otherwise the very cornerstone of our constitutional scheme will give way and with it will disappear the rule of law and the civilised life in the society. Otherwise the very cornerstone of our constitutional scheme will give way and with it will disappear the rule of law and the civilised life in the society. It is for this purpose that the courts are entrusted with extraordinary powers of punishing those who indulge in acts, whether inside or outside the courts, which tend to undermine the authority of law and bring it in disrepute and disrespect by scandalising it. When the court exercises this power, it does not do so to vindicate the dignity and honour of the individual judge who is personally attacked or scandalised, but to uphold the majesty of the law and of the administration of justice. The foundation of the judiciary is the trust and the confidence of the people in its ability to deliver fearless and impartial justice. When the foundation itself is shaken by acts which tend to create disaffection and disrespect for the authority of the court by creating distrust in its working, the edifice of the judicial system gets eroded. 2. No person can flout the mandate of law of respecting the courts for establishment of rule of law under the cloak of freedoms of speech and expression guaranteed by the Constitution. Such a freedom is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by any law. Where a provision, in the law, relating to contempt imposes reasonable restrictions, no citizen can take the liberty of scandalising the authority of the institution of judiciary. Freedom of speech and expression, so far as they do not contravene the statutory limits as contained in the Contempt of Courts Act, are to prevail without any hindrance. However, it must be remembered that the maintenance of dignity of courts is one of the cardinal principles of rule of law in a democratic set up and any criticism of the judicial institution couched in language that apparently appears to be mere criticism but ultimately results in undermining the dignity of the courts cannot be permitted when found having crossed the limits and has to be punished. This Court in In Re: Harijai Singh & Another [ 1996 (6) SCC 466 has pointed out that a free and healthy Press is indispensable to the function of a true democracy but, at the same time, cautioned that the freedom of Press is not absolute, unlimited and unfettered at all times and in all circumstances. This Court in In Re: Harijai Singh & Another [ 1996 (6) SCC 466 has pointed out that a free and healthy Press is indispensable to the function of a true democracy but, at the same time, cautioned that the freedom of Press is not absolute, unlimited and unfettered at all times and in all circumstances. Lord Dening in his Book "Road to Justice" observed that Press is the watchdog to see that every trial is conducted fairly, openly and above board but the watchdog may sometimes break loose and has to be punished for misbehaviour. Frankfurther, J. in Pennekamp v. Florida [(1946) 90 Led 1295 at p.1313] observed: "If men, including Judges and journalists were angels, there would be no problems of contempt of Court. Angelic Judges would be undisturbed by extraneous influences and angelic journalists would not seek to influence them. The power to punish for contempt, as a means of safeguarding Judges in deciding on behalf of the community as impartially as is given to the lot of men to decide, is not a privilege accorded to Judges. The power to punish for contempt of court is a safeguard not for Judges as persons but for the function which they exercise." 3. The law of contempt has been enacted to secure public respect and confidence in the judicial process. If such confidence is shaken or broken, the confidence of the common man in the institution of judiciary and democratic set up is likely to be eroded which, if not checked, is sure to be disastrous for the society itself." [11.2] In the case of Maninderjit Singh Bitta v. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2012)1 SCC 273 , in paras 19 to 23, 25 and 26, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed and held as under: "19. Under the Indian Law the conduct of the parties, the act of disobedience and the attendant circumstances are relevant to consider whether a case would fall under civil contempt or a criminal contempt. For example, disobedience of an order of a court simplicitor would be civil contempt but when it is coupled with conduct of the parties which is contemptuous, prejudicial and is in flagrant violation of the law of the land, it may be treated as a criminal contempt. Even under the English Law, the courts have the power to enforce its judgment and orders against the recalcitrant parties. Even under the English Law, the courts have the power to enforce its judgment and orders against the recalcitrant parties. 20. In exercise of its contempt jurisdiction, the courts are primarily concerned with enquiring whether the contemnor is guilty of intentional and wilful violation of the orders of the court, even to constitute a civil contempt. Every party to lis before the court, and even otherwise, is expected to obey the orders of the court in its true spirit and substance. Every person is required to respect and obey the orders of the court with due dignity for the institution. The Government Departments are no exception to it. The departments or instrumentalities of the State must act expeditiously as per orders of the court and if such orders postulate any schedule, then it must be adhered to. Whenever there are obstructions or difficulties in compliance with the orders of the court, least that is expected of the Government Department or its functionaries is to approach the court for extension of time or, if called for. But, where the party neither obeys the orders of the court nor approaches the court making appropriate prayers for extension of time or variation of order, the only possible inference in law is that such party disobeys the orders of the court. In other words, it is intentionally not carrying out the orders of the court. Flagrant violation of the court's orders would reflect the attitude of the concerned party to undermine the authority of the courts, its dignity and the administration of justice. 21. In Vinay Chandra Mishra, In re, this Court held that: (SCC p. 617, para 39) "39. ….judiciary has a special and additional duty to perform, viz., to oversee that all individuals and institutions including the executive and the legislature act within the framework of not only the law but also the fundamental law of the land. This duty is apart from the function of adjudicating the disputes between the parties which is essential to peaceful and orderly development of the society. Dignity and authority of the Courts have to be respected and protected at all costs". 22. Another very important aspect even of the Civil Contempt is, 'what is the attribution of the contemnor?' There may be cases of disobedience where the respondent commits acts and deeds leading to actual disobedience of the orders of the court. Dignity and authority of the Courts have to be respected and protected at all costs". 22. Another very important aspect even of the Civil Contempt is, 'what is the attribution of the contemnor?' There may be cases of disobedience where the respondent commits acts and deeds leading to actual disobedience of the orders of the court. Such contemnor may flout the orders of the court openly, intentionally and with no respect for the rule of law. While in some other cases of civil contempt, disobedience is the consequence or inference of a dormant or passive behaviour on the part of the contemnor. Such would be the cases where the contemnor does not take steps and just remains unmoved by the directions of the court. As such, even in cases where no positive/active role is directly attributable to a person, still, his passive and dormant attitude of inaction may result in violation of the orders of the court and may render him liable for an action of contempt. 23. It is not the offence of contempt which gets altered by a passive/negative or an active/positive behaviour of a contemnor but at best, it can be a relevant consideration for imposition of punishment, wherever the contemnor is found guilty of contempt of court. 25. Deprecating practice of undue delay in compliance with the orders of the court, this Court again in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India observed: (SCC p. 311, paras 89) ".....clear lapse on the part of NCT and Municipal Corporation. Even if there was not deliberate or wilful disregard for the court orders, there has clearly been a lackadaisical attitude and approach towards them. Though no further action in this matter need be taken for now, but such lethargic attitude if continues may soon become contumacious." 26. It is also of some relevancy to note that disobedience of court orders by positive or active contribution or nonobedience by a passive and dormant conduct leads to the same result. Disobedience of orders of the court strikes at the very root of rule of law on which the judicial system rests. The rule of law is the foundation of a democratic society. Judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law. Disobedience of orders of the court strikes at the very root of rule of law on which the judicial system rests. The rule of law is the foundation of a democratic society. Judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law. If the Judiciary is to perform its duties and functions effectively and remain true to the spirit with which they are sacredly entrusted, the dignity and authority of the courts have to be respected and protected at all costs (refer T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad's case, SCC p.6, para 5). The proceedings before the highest court of the land in a public interest litigation, attain even more significance. These are the cases which come up for hearing before the court on a grievance raised by the public at large or public spirited persons. The State itself places matters before the Court for determination which would fall, statutorily or otherwise, in the domain of the executive authority." [11.3] In the case of Patel Rajnikant Dhulabhai & Anr. (Supra), in paras 75 to 77, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed and held as under: 75. It is well settled that an apology is neither a weapon of defence to purge the guilty of their offence; nor is it intended to operate as a universal panacea, it is intended to be evidence of real contriteness [Vide M.Y. Shareaf v. Hon'ble Judges of the High Court of Nagpur; (1955) 1 SCR 757 : M.B. Sanghi v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana, (1991) 3 SCR 312 ]. 76. In T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (102) v. Ashok Khot & Anr., 2006 (5) SCC 1 , a three Judge Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider the question in the light of an 'apology' as a weapon defence by the contemner with a prayer to drop the proceedings. The Court took note of the following observations of this Court in L.D. Jaikwal v. State of U.P., (1984) 3 SCC 405 : (Ashok Khot case, SCC p. 17, para 32) "32. ….We are sorry to say we cannot subscribe to the 'slapsay sorry – and forget' school of thought in administration of contempt jurisprudence. Saying 'sorry' does not make the slipper taken the slap smart less upon the said hypocritical word being uttered. Apology shall not be paper apology and expression of sorrow should come from the heart and not from the pen. Saying 'sorry' does not make the slipper taken the slap smart less upon the said hypocritical word being uttered. Apology shall not be paper apology and expression of sorrow should come from the heart and not from the pen. For it is one thing to 'say' sorry it is another to 'feel' sorry". The Court, therefore, rejected the prayer and stated: (SCC p. 17, para 31) "31. Apology is an act of contrition. Unless apology Page 28 of 43 is offered at the earliest opportunity and in good grace, the apology is shorn of penitence and hence it is liable to be rejected. If the apology is offered at the time when the contemnor finds that the court is going to impose punishment it ceases to be an apology and becomes an act of a cringing coward". Similar view was taken in other cases also by this Court. 77. We are also satisfied that the so-called apology is not an act of penitence, contrition or regret. It has been tendered as a 'tactful move' when the contemners are in the tight corner and with a view to ward off the Court. Acceptance of such apology in the case on hand would be allowing the contemners to go away with impunity after committing gross contempt of Court. In our considered opinion, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, imposition of fine in lieu of imprisonment will not meet the ends of justice." In the aforesaid decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed that punishing a person for contempt of Court is indeed a drastic step and normally such action should not be taken. However, at the same time, it is not only the power but the duty of the Court to uphold and maintain the dignity of Courts and majesty of law which may call for such extreme step. It is further observed that if for proper administration of justice and to ensure due compliance of the orders passed by the Court, it is required to take strict view under the Act, it should not hesitate in wielding the potent weapon of contempt. [11.4]In the case of State of M.P. & Anr. v. Suresh Narayan Vijayvargiya & Ors. It is further observed that if for proper administration of justice and to ensure due compliance of the orders passed by the Court, it is required to take strict view under the Act, it should not hesitate in wielding the potent weapon of contempt. [11.4]In the case of State of M.P. & Anr. v. Suresh Narayan Vijayvargiya & Ors. in Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 390 of 2011 in Civil Appeal No. 4060 of 2009, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that it is trite law that apology is neither a weapon of defence to purge the guilty of their offence; nor is it intended to operate as universal panacea, it is intended to be evidence of real contriteness. 10. Learned advocate for the applicants submitted that the said decision was assailed in the Supreme Court by way of S.L.P., in which, it was submitted that with the consent of the parties, the sentence only was set aside and finding of contempt was not disturbed as well as the annulment was also not disturbed. 11. Mr. Raval learned advocate for the respondents submitted that the defendants are residing abroad and newly purchaser is also not residing in India, the time was sought for reversal of the sale-deed which may be taken into consideration. 12. This Court is of the considered view that when the respondents have come out with affidavit way back on 17.12.2015 and subsequent affidavit dated 23.12.2015, there hardly remains a question to be adjudicated so far as breach is concerned. The contents of numbers of decisions in which it is clearly observed that the action taken in ignorance of the court's order, over reaching court's process, would be nullity in the eye of law also and, hence, we have to annul the sale-deed in question, which, therefore, is hereby annulled as the sale-deed was executed in disregard of the court's order. As a result thereof, the sale-deed dated 24.6.2014 shall have no effect at all and the same is declared to be void ab initio and any action taken pursuant thereto also shall be voided and are voided by this Court as no one can claim any right, title or entitlement through that or under the sale-deed dated 24.6.2014 which was admittedly executed in disregard to the order of this Court dated 14.3.2012. 13. 13. This brings this court to consider the aspect of dealing with the claim of the applicants that the respondents are liable to be prosecuted against the Contempt of Courts Act. 14. Mr. Mehta learned advocate appearing for the applicant, at this stage submitted that in case if the court is not inclined to pass any order qua punishment as prayed in para-10(C), the Court may at least consider about the awarding appropriate costs. 15. We are of the considered view that the respondents have though not resisted this matter in any manner qua the factum of contempt and looking to the aforesaid two affidavits of the respondents, we are not inclined to issue any order so far as prayer para-10(C) is concerned, but it would be appropriate to partly allow this application with appropriate costs as on account of act of disregard to this Court's order, the applicants were compelled to take out this proceedings. Hence, this application is partly allowed with costs of Rs. 25,000/-. The respondents shall deposit the said amount with the Registry of this Court on or before 25.2.2016, which shall be disbursed to the applicants after proper verification. First Appeal to be listed for hearing in due course. Appeal Partly Allowed.