JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. During, the pendency of the plaintiff’s suit, claiming therethrough, rendition of a decree, for, partition, of, the undivided suit property inter-se him, and, the defendants, (i) an application cast, under the provision of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 stands instituted, before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div) Chachiot at Gohar, District Mandi, H.P., and, thereon, the ad-interim injunction order stands hence rendered. 2. Conspicuously, a relief of ad-interim injunction, was, claimed against the defendants, vis-a-vis, the suit property, and, affirmative order pronounced, upon, apposite CMA No. 43 of 2005, remained unchallenged, before the learned appellate authority concerned, hence, the afore order assumes both conclusivity and finality. 3. Be that as it may, during, the pendency of the afore Civil Suit, before the learned trial Judge, and, after the afore conclusive order becoming rendered, upon, C.M.A No. 43 of 2005, (a), and, wherethrough the contesting litigants were directed, to, maintain status quo qua nature and possession, of, the suit property, till, the final adjudication becoming meted, upon, the main case, (b) hence an application cast, under, the provisions of order 20 rule 18 readwith Section 151 CPC, was, preferred before the learned trial Judge, and, thereon after accepting, the, report of the Tehsildar, Chachiot, the latter whereof stood appointed, as, a local commissioner, to, make recommendations, vis-a-vis, the makings, of, dismemberments, of, the undivided suit property, through, metes and bounds, (c) and, obviously after rejecting the objections reared qua therewith, by all the concerned, hence, the learned trial Court rather allowed the application, and, also ordered, vis-a-vis, the report of local Commissioner, spot maps, and, naksha partition (B) and (J) alongwith statements, of, the parties, becoming part and parcel of the final decree. Consequently on 27.8.2016, the learned trial Judge also proceeded, to, subsequent, to, the rendition of the preliminary decree, of, partition, vis-a-vis, the undivided suit property amongst the contesting litigants, hence also in the afore manner, rendered a final decree of partition, vis-a-vis, the suit property. The order made, on, the afore remains unchallenged, and, hence acquires conclusivity. 4. Consequently on 27.8.2016, the learned trial Judge also proceeded, to, subsequent, to, the rendition of the preliminary decree, of, partition, vis-a-vis, the undivided suit property amongst the contesting litigants, hence also in the afore manner, rendered a final decree of partition, vis-a-vis, the suit property. The order made, on, the afore remains unchallenged, and, hence acquires conclusivity. 4. Be that as it may, during, the pendency of the main Civil Suit, before the learned trial Court, and, after, the, rendition, of, a conclusive order, upon, an application cast under the provisions of order 39 rule 1 and 2 CPC readwith Section 151 CPC, and, wherethrough the parties, were directed, to, maintain status quo, visa- vis, nature and possession, of, the suit property, till, a, final adjudication being meted, on the main case, (a) rather an application cast, under, the provisions of Order 39 rule 2 (A) readwith Section 94 of the CPC, became preferred before the learned trial Judge, hence by the plaintiff, with clear averments therein, vis-a-vis, the defendant No.1/petitioner herein willfully disobeying, the, status quo order, in as much, as, his executing a mortgage deed, vis-a-vis, his share in the suit land, vis-avis, H.P state Cooperative Bank, on 26.9.2005, hence before the Sub Registrar Chachiot, and, hence since execution of, a, mortgage deed, vis-a-vis, the suit property, visibly occurring, subsequent to the pronouncement, of, a conclusive order of status quo, and, with the mortgage remaining evidently unredeemed, hence appropriate action, in, accordance, with, law, was espoused to be initiated, against, the errant defendant. 5. Upon the afore application, the learned trial Judge recorded an affirmative findings, vis-a-vis, the applicant, holding no no tenable valid espousal, for, the motion being misrecoursed, and, upon the afore order becoming appealed before the learned first appellate Court, it, became modified, in as much, as, out of the attached property, as, made vide Ex. AW-1/J, only land measuring 00-00-05 bigha, being ordered to be sold, and, sale proceeds thereof, being directed to be handed over, to, the petitioner/respondent herein. 6. Both the afore orders pronounced, by the learned trial judge, and, later by the learned first Appellate Court, are, challenged before this Court. 7. AW-1/J, only land measuring 00-00-05 bigha, being ordered to be sold, and, sale proceeds thereof, being directed to be handed over, to, the petitioner/respondent herein. 6. Both the afore orders pronounced, by the learned trial judge, and, later by the learned first Appellate Court, are, challenged before this Court. 7. For testing the validity, of, the impugning submissions addressed here before by the learned counsel, for, the aggrieved defendant/petitioner herein, it is imperative to allude, to, the provisions, borne in order 39 Rule 2 (A) CPC, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter. 2A. Consequence of disobedience or breach of injunction- (1) in the case of disobedience of any injunction granted or other order made under rule 1 or rule 2 or breach of any of the terms on which the injunction was granted or the order made, the Court granting the injunction or making the order, or any Court to which the suit or proceeding is transferred, may order the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached, and may also order such person to be detained in the Civil Prison for a term not exceeding three months, unless in the meantime, the Court directs his release. (2) No attachment made under this rule shall remain in force for more than one year, at the end of which time, if the disobedience or breach continues, the property attached may be sold and out of the proceeds, the Court may award such compensation as it thinks fit to the injured party and shall pay the balance, if ant, to the party entitled thereto.” 8. A reading of the afore extracted provisions, makes clear unfoldings, vis-a-vis, the Courts of law, upon, an order becoming rendered, upon, an application, cast under, the, provisions, of, order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC and, becoming evidently breached, (i) thereupon it holding jurisdiction, to, make an order, of, attachment of the suit property, and, also the learned trial Court becoming authorized, to, order for the errant being detained in civil imprisonment, hence for a term not exceeding three months. However sub Rule (2) thereof, also, makes visible echoings, vis-a-vis, no order of attachment remaining in force for more than one year, and, at the end, of, the afore period, besides there up to, and, thereafter also upon, its breachings evidently continuing, thereupon, alone, and, at the aforereferred phase, rather the attached property, becoming amenable to be sold, and, out of sale proceeds, the learned trial judge becoming empowered, to, monetarily recompense, the, injured therefrom. 9. The orders rendered by the Courts below, visibly infract the mandate of sub Rule 2 of Order 39 Rule 2 (A) CPC, in as much, as, the salutary purpose behind sub Rule 2 of order 39 rule 2 (A), in as much, as, an order of attachment being made statutorily alive up to one year, and, on expiry, of, period, of, one year, rather jurisdiction becoming vested, in, the trial Court, to, order for sale of the suit property, and,the learned trial Judge becoming authorized, to, monetarily recompense, the, injured is to bestow leverage, to, the errant litigant, to, within a period of one year, hence make apt remedial recourses. Consequently, the bestowment, of, an holistic statutory empowerment, vis-a-vis the errant litigant, to, redeem his evident breaches, hence is enjoined, to be, meted deference. However, both the Courts below, though, were enjoined to not conjointly, hence, upon the apposite thereto, application, and, nor in synonymity thereto hence make an order, of, sale of the attached property, (i) whereupon they would mete deference, to, the afore holistic statutory purpose, and, rather both were enjoined to intially make, an, statutory order of attachment, vis-a-vis, the suit property, rather in accordance with law, and, if found attachable, and, to thereafter only upon expiry, of, one year, and, with thereat yet evidently, the, afore breach continuing, in as much, as, the defendant not redeeming the suit property, to, hence thereat rather proceed to order, for, sale of the attached property, and, also the afore sale proceeds were orderable to be disbursed, in accordance with law, vis-a-vis, the injured, or, vis-a-vis, the derelicting or the errant litigant. However, the afore befitting legal recoursing (s) are, not existing in the impugned order, contrarily rather synonymously made hence, in the impugned order, are conjoint untenable simultaneous order (s), both for attachment, and, for sale, of, the attached property. 10. However, the afore befitting legal recoursing (s) are, not existing in the impugned order, contrarily rather synonymously made hence, in the impugned order, are conjoint untenable simultaneous order (s), both for attachment, and, for sale, of, the attached property. 10. In aftermath, both the Courts below, in making the afore conjoint unwarranted order, do visibly infringe, the, statutory interdiction and, therefore, the impugned order (s) before this Court, requires interference, and, is set aside. However, in the ends of justice, the learned trial Court after recording, of, a fresh order in accordance with law, upon, CMA No. 155-VI/2005, and, upon the defendant concerned, failing, to, upon his recording appearance before the learned trial Judge, hence adduce any evidence, vis-a-vis, his yet, redeeming, the mortgage, as made, visa- vis, the suit property, thereupon, it shall thereafter in accordance with law, make an order in accordance with law of attachment, of, the suit property, and, if the breach, yet continues even, after expiry of one year, since the making of the afore order, it is permissible for the learned trial Judge, to, in consonance, with, the mandate of Order 39 Rule 2 (A) CPC, make an order for sale, of, the attached suit property, and, thereafter to make an order, vis-a-vis, the disbursement of the sale proceeds, in accordance with law, vis-a-vis the injured, or, vis-a-vis the direlecting or the errant litigant. 11. Necessarily all inconsequential ensuing orders made, vis-a-vis, the impugned fallacious orders, shall not, uptill the remandee Court, makes compliance, vis-a-vis, the afore directions, shall hence not be enforced. 12. Any observation made herein above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made herein above.