An order was passed on 25.04.2003 in which the counsel for the opposite parties Sri G. S. Nigam was heard. He was a caveator. Naturally a fair inference can be drawn that the opposite parties were well aware of the institution of the writ petition. Presence of a caveator further strengthens the fact about the knowledge to the opposite parties. Status-quo order was passed by the writ court on 25.04.2003 and the sale of the property was made on 28.04.2003. There appears to be a prima facie case of the contempt of the Court's order.
Counter-affidavit has been filed stating therein that the order could not be communicated to the opposite parties, as she could not contacted her lawyer and as such she has no information about the order of the Court. This plea is as flimsy as frivolous as it can be. A lawyer represents the client through a vakalatnama. There is a contract between the lawyer and the client. The arguments of the lawyers are binding on the client and vice-versa. It cannot be argued that the knowledge to the lawyer is not the knowledge to the client. The haste with which the sale has been proceeded shows a deliberate attempt to do away with the property about the status-quo has been ordered.
Learned counsel for the opposite parties says that no rejoinder-affidavit has been filed.
Counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file rejoinder-affidavit.
List thereafter.
Order Date :- 18.10.2011 RS.