Transfers during pendency of suit by a party to the suit is not void, such transfer is subservient to the decision in the suit.

What is the status of transaction and purchaser of property during the pendency of suit?

   It is settled legal position that the effect of Section 52 is not to render transfers effected during to pendency of a suit by a party to the suit void, but only to render such transfers subservient to the rights of the parties to such suit, as may be, eventually, determined in the suit. In other words, the transfer remains valid subject, of course, to the result of the suit. The pendente lite purchaser would be entitled to, or suffer the same legal rights and obligations of his vendor as may be eventually determined by the court. The mere pendency of the suit does not prevent one of the parties to the suit from dealing with the subject matter of the suit. The Section only postulates a condition that the lis pendens alienation will in no manner affect the rights of the other party under any decree, which may be passed in the suit unless the property alienated with the permission of the Court.

In order to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that disobedience of the order is wilful

The contours for initiating civil contempt action:

   The contempt jurisdiction conferred on to the law courts power to punish an offender for his wilful disobedience/contumacious conduct or obstruction to them majesty of law, for the reason that respect and authority commanded by the courts of law are the greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizen that his rights shall be protected and the entire democratic fabric of the society will crumble down if the respect of the judiciary is undermined. Undoubtedly, the contempt jurisdiction is a powerful weapon in the hands of the courts of law but that by itself operates as a string of caution and unless, thus, otherwise satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, it would neither be fair nor reasonable for the law courts to exercise jurisdiction under the Act. Ther proceedings are quasi ­criminal in nature, and therefore, standard of proof required in these proceedings is beyond all reasonable doubt. It would rather be hazardous to impose sentence for contempt on the authorities in exercise of the contempt jurisdiction on mere probabilities.

(Vide V.G. Nigam v. Kedar Nath Gupta, (1992) 4 SCC 697, Chhotu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati, (2001) 7 SCC 530, Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh, (2002) 4 SCC 21, Bank of Baroda v. Sadruddin Hasan Daya, (2004) 1 SCC 360, Sahdeo v. State of U.P., (2010) 3 SCC 705 and National Fertilizers Ltd. v. Tuncay Alankus, (2013) 9 SCC 600.)