IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.355 of 2007 Between: Kantamma …Appellant AND A.G.Sivaram …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.355 of 2007 JUDGMENT: The appellant ﬁled a suit in O.S.No.65 of 1992 on the ﬁle of Junior Civil Judge, Kuppam for declaration of title in respect of the suit schedule property. By orders dated 31.08.1999, the said suit was decreed in part. Aggrieved by the same, respondent ﬁled A.S.No.135 of 1999 on the ﬁle of the District Judge, Chittoor. He also filed I.A.No.394 of 2001 seeking interim injunction. The lower appellate Court, by its order dated 17.09.2001 in the said Interlocutory Application, granted interim injunction in favour of the respondent. Subsequently, the said order of Interim Injunction was made absolute by order dated 31.01.2002, which reads as follows: Counter filed. Heard both sides. For the same reasons stated in the order dated 17.09.2001, interim orders except in respect of item No.1 of the petition schedule have to be maintained during the pendency of the appeal. Hence, interim orders dated 17.09.2001 are made absolute and the petition is closed. The eﬀect of the order in I.A.No.394 of 2001 is that the appellant was restrained from alienating the suit schedule lands, except item No.1. However, she executed two registered sale deeds, one vide document No.1504 of 2004 dated 12.08.2004 in favour of one R.Rajamma in respect of land in Survey No. 48-B admeasuring an extent of 0.80 cents of Kamathamur village and post, Kuppam Mandal, Chittoor District (item No.3 of the schedule property) and another vide document No.1505 of 2004 in favour of K.R.Prakash in respect of item No.10 of the schedule property. Alleging that the appellant disobeyed the orders of injunction, the respondent ﬁled I.A.No.12 of 2004 on the ﬁle of VIII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Chittoor, under Order 39 Rule 2(A) C.P.C., to enquire into the matter and punish the appellant by detaining her in civil prison for a term of three months for disobedience of the injunction orders referred to above. The appellant did not dispute the execution of aforesaid sale deeds, but contended that she was not aware of the injunction order, but in any event it was a mistake on her part to have executed the registered sale deeds without enquiry from her advocate. She also contended that she is sick and an illiterate woman and therefore, tendered unconditional apology and requested the Court to accept the same and pardon her. The Court, considering the seriousness of her disobedience to the legal process, did not accept the unconditional apology. Having found that the appellant committed breach of the orders, in exercise of its powers under Order 39 Rule 2(A) C.P.C., the Court ordered detention of the appellant in civil prison for one month and attached the properties sold under the aforesaid registered sale deeds. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant ﬁled present appeal. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant fairly submitted that the appellant committed breach of Injunction orders passed by the Court. He also fairly submitted that the orders attaching the properties sold by the appellant under registered sale deeds also is not liable to be interfered with in this appeal. However, learned counsel submitted that the appellant is entitled for the leniency as she is aged about 65 years and an illiterate woman. He submitted that irrespective of legal implications and constructive knowledge on her part of the injunction order passed by the lower appellate Court, in fact, she was not personally aware of those orders and she was not even aware of the consequences of disobedience of those orders. He further submitted that some indulgence has to be shown towards illiterate persons who are not aware of the legal consequences. Learned counsel supported his contention by referring to the impugned order itself which shows that the advocate himself stated that the appellant was not aware of the orders. He, therefore, sought for the indulgence of this Court to reduce the detention period for one day till the rising of the Court. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the appellant is not entitled for any leniency and the detention period imposed by the lower appellate Court is reasonable and as such, the said order of detention might not be interfered with. I have considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel. It is not in dispute that the appellant committed breach of orders of injunction. It is also not in dispute that the appellant is an illiterate woman hailing from a rural place. Besides the same, the appellant is stated to be suﬀering from ill health, which fact is not seriously disputed by learned counsel for the respondent. No doubt, the orders of the Courts cannot be ﬂouted on any ground, lest the judicial process would be aﬀected. The apex Court in Samee Khan Vs. Bindu Khan[1], while not approving the view taken by the Rajasthan High Court that the orders as to detention are in addition to the orders as to attachment under Order 39 Rule 2(A) C.P.C., held that ‘ It is open to the Court to attach the property of the disobeying party and at the same time the Court can order him to be detained in civil prison also if the Court deems it necessary. Similarly, the Court which orders the person to be detained in civil prison can also attach the property of that person. Both steps can be resorted to or one of them alone need be chosen. It is left to the Court to decide on consideration of the fact situation in each case.” A reading of the aforesaid judgment would show that the order as to detention is not in addition to the order as to attachment. For the exercise of this power, the Court has the discretion on consideration of the fact situation in each case. In the instant case, as noticed above, the appellant had no personal knowledge of the order and being an illiterate and aged woman, these circumstances can be taken into consideration, at least insofar as the period of detention is concerned. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the following order will meet the ends of justice. The appellant is directed to undergo detention for one day till the rising of the Court. For this purpose, she shall appear before the Court within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. She shall ﬁrst report to the Court Oﬃcer at 10:00 A.M., be present before the learned Judge at 10:25 A.M. and submit unconditional apology in writing expressing regret. She shall continue to be in the Court till the rising of the Court at 05:00 P.M. She may, however, on obtaining the permission of the Learned Judge, avail lunch time as ﬁxed by the Learned Judge. The appellant shall leave the Court only after obtaining the permission of the Learned Judge. In the circumstances the case, the appellant is also liable to pay costs in this appeal. The appellant shall deposit a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) in the Court on the day on which she appears and on such deposit, the same may be paid to the respondent herein. Accordingly, the punishment in the impugned order dated 26.03.2007 passed in I.A.No.12 of 2004 by the VIII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Chittoor, is alone modiﬁed to the extent indicated above. In all other respects, the impugned order is confirmed. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed with costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI February 24, 2010 Bvv [1] (1998) 7 Supreme Court Cases 59