( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 112 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12290 OF 2008 Savita w/o. Ravindra Pathak & ors. .. Appellants Versus Uddhav s/o. Eknath Gund .. Respondent Shri H.H. Padalkar, Advocate for the appellants. Shri S.P. Deshmukh, Advocate for the sole respondent. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 28.07.2009 P.C. :- 1. Heard Shri H.H. Padalkar, Advocate for the appellants and Shri S.P. Deshmukh, Advocate for the sole respondent. 2. This is an Appeal From Order directed against the order passed below Exh.34, in Regular Civil Appeal No.154 of 2008, whereby the Principal District Judge, Beed, by his order dated 10.11.2008 has directed that respondent No.4 Savita Ravindra Pathak, respondent No.7 – Bhagwat s/o. ( 2 ) Kashinath More and respondent No. 8 – Dilip s/o. Uttamrao Gaikwad be detained in civil prison for a period of one week. 3. The learned advocate for the appellants Shri H.H. Padalkar pointed out to me the law laid down in Smt. Rampyaribai sd/o. Sukhdeo Daga & Ors., V/s. Smt. Niladevi wd/o. Narayandas Jakhotiya & Ors., 2007 (5) ALL MR 95, while dealing with Order 39 Rule 2-A of the C.P.C. It is laid down in para 7 as under :- “7. ............... the proceedings under Order 39, Rule 2-A of the Civil Procedure Code are absolutely independent proceedings. Whether there was breach of injunction or not is a question to be decided upon evidence and the said question has no relevance with the issues in the suit which are to be decided on merits of the suit. The eventuality of breach of injunction has occurred not at the time of filing of the suit but subsequent to the filing of the suit. The issues framed in the suit on merits of the suit cannot be mixed up with the trial of the application Exh.37) for breach of injunction. The question whether the petitioners would be prejudiced or not is not relevant. What is relevant is the practice and procedure that is required to be adopted while ( 3 ) deciding the suit and the application for breach of injunction. As a matter of fact, in my opinion, the application for breach of injunction should be separately registered as Misc. Judicial case and should be tried by framing appropriate issues. Thus the proceedings for breach of injunction has absolutely nothing to do with the decision of the suit on merits. ..........................” 4. Adv. Shri Padalkar further pointed out to me that said procedure is not followed. Considering the gravity of action contemplated by Order 39 Rule 2A of the C.P.C., in my opinion, there must be due enquiry into the breach of the order of the Court and the matter cannot be simply decided on application for taking action for breach and its reply. 5. In this case, Adv. Shri S.P. Deshmukh has pointed out to me the conduct of the advocate of the appellants as reflected from order passed by the Principal District Judge, Beed, below Exh.34, on 07.11.2008. This Court expresses concern and emphasizes need for restrained and dignified conduct on the part of the advocates even when some order goes against their client. But that cannot be a reason not to follow the procedure as contemplated by this Court in the ( 4 ) judgment reported in 2007. 6. With these observations this Appeal From Order is allowed. The order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Beed, dated 10.11.2008 is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the said Court with directions that he should follow the procedure as laid down in the case of Rampyaribai (Supra) and then decide the matter according to law. 7. The learned advocate for the appellant informs that the matter is for hearing on 4th August, 2009, and his client would appear in the Court on that day. The parties are directed to act on the copy authenticated by Shirastedar of this Court. 8. In view of disposal of this Appeal From Order, Civil Application No. 12290 of 2008 does not survive. The Civil Application stands disposed of. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/JUN09/ao112.08