Ramasamy (Purchaser) vs Venkatachalapathi (Decree Holder)

The Supreme Court upheld the finding of contempt against the appellant for willful disobedience of the interim injunction order dated 09.12.2004 under Order XXXIX Rule 2(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court emphasized that violation of an injunction is serious and requires clear evidence of willful disobedience. Although the appellant, being the father-in-law of the second respondent, claimed ignorance of the injunction, the Court found that the execution of the sale deed during the pendency of the injunction constituted contempt, affirming the High Court's decision.