Execution of Power of Attorney Does Not Violate Interim Direction Requiring Disclosure of Pending Litigation in Sale Documents

The petitioner filed a suit for specific performance regarding land in Village Dagrai, which was dismissed by the trial court in 2012.

During the pendency of the First Appeal, the High Court issued an interim order on 20.01.2014, directing that any property transactions would be subject to the final decision (principle of lis pendens) and requiring the respondents to declare the pending litigation in any future sale documents.

The petitioner initiated contempt proceedings alleging that respondents 3 and 4 violated this order by executing a power of attorney in favor of respondents 6 and 7 on 22.07.2014 without mentioning the pending appeal.

1. Whether the execution of a power of attorney constitutes a violation of an interim order that regulates the alienation of suit property and requires disclosure of pending litigation in sale documents.

2. Whether subsequent sale deeds not mentioned in the original contempt petition can be considered as grounds for contempt.

The court applied Article 215 of the Constitution of India and Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, regarding the willful disobedience of court orders.

It relied on the principle of lis pendens, which provides that the determination of a suit regarding immovable property binds any person who derives title from a party to the suit during its pendency.

The court also applied procedural principles regarding the scope of pleadings, noting that contempt proceedings are restricted to the specific allegations and documents raised in the petition.

The Court observed that the interim order dated 20.01.2014 did not strictly prohibit the alienation of the property; instead, it mandated that any transfers be subject to the appeal's outcome and required a disclosure clause in "agreement/sale deed/document" transferring the property.

The Court reasoned that a power of attorney is merely an authorization and does not, by itself, transfer title or constitute a sale agreement.

Consequently, the failure to mention the litigation in a power of attorney does not breach the disclosure requirement intended for transfer documents.

Regarding the Senior Counsel's argument that a sale deed was later executed, the Court held this could not be adjudicated as it was not part of the original petition’s subject matter and the deed was not on record.

The contempt petition was dismissed.