C.R. No. 5172 of 2006 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 5172 of 2006 Date of Decision : 17.8.2009 Dalip Singh & another .......... Petitioners Versus Balwinder Singh & another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Om Pal Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Courts below on an application moved under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff / respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from dispossessing the plaintiff / respondents from the land in dispute or alienating it. Along with the suit an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also moved. The learned trial Court ordered the maintenance of status quo. The respondent / plaintiff, therefore moved an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for taking action against the appellant for disobeying the order of status quo dated 17.2.1999, passed in the civil suit for permanent injunction. C.R. No. 5172 of 2006 2 The application was contested and the parties were permitted to lead evidence. The learned trial Court on appreciation of evidence recorded a finding, that the petitioners violated the order of injunction passed by this Court, as the petitioner i.e. father of the plaintiff / respondent, transferred the property in favour of petitioner No.2. The learned trial Court ordered, that the property of Dalip Singh and Malkiat Singh petitioners be attached for a period of six months and further ordered that petitioner be detained in civil imprisonment for a period of one month. The appeal filed by the petitioner also failed. The order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under :- “2A. Consequence of disobedience or breach of injunction.- (1) In the case of disobedience of any injunction granted or other order made under rule 1 or rule 2 or breach of any of the terms on which the injunction was granted or the order made, the Court granting the injunction or making the order, or any Court to which the suit or proceeding is transferred, may order the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached, and may also order such person to be detained in the C.R. No. 5172 of 2006 3 civil prison for a term not exceeding three months, unless in the meantime the Court directs his release. (2) No attachment made under this rule shall remain in force for more than one year, at the end of which time, if the disobedience or breach continues, the property attached may be sold and out of the proceeds, the Court may award such compensation as it thinks fit to the injured party and shall pay the balance, if any, to the party entitled thereto.” The reading of the provisions of Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure would show that the object of the provision is to enforce the order of injunction. Once the property was ordered to be attached, there was hardly any reason for the Court to order civil imprisonment. The property could have been easily sold, as per the provisions of Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. It may also be noticed, that in this case the suit filed by the plaintiff / respondents has been finally dismissed by the Civil Court and there is no order of injunction in force as on date. This Court in the case of Rachhpal Singh, Petitioner v. Gurdarshan Singh, Respondent AIR 1985 Punjab and Haryana 299, has been pleased to lay down as under :- “5. The learned counsel for the respondent to advocate the C.R. No. 5172 of 2006 4 contrary view relied on Thakorlal Parshottam Das v. Chandulal Chunilal, AIR 1967 Gujarat 124, Gobinda Parida v. Chakradhara Routrary AIR 1971 Orissa 10 and Calcutta Medical Stores v. Stadmed Private Ltd. (1977) 81 Cal 209. In Thakorlal Parshottamdas and Gobinda Parida's cases (supra), the injunction was still in force when the action against its disobedience was taken. In the case of Calcutta Medical Stores, the only question before the court was whether the High court would entertain a petition for contempt in the presence of adequate provisions contained in O.39 for the enforcement of the injunction. The question at hand was neither raised nor debated there. In three decisions of this court in Hari Parshad v. Khilla Ram 1974 Pun LJ(Cri) 71, Janak Raj v. Ganesh Das Puri 1975 Pun LJ (Cri) 39 and M/s Bharaj Manufacturing Co.'s case (1980-82 Pun LR 406) (supra), the view similar to the one taken in the case of Calcutta Medical Stores was expressed and the court declined to entertain a petition under Contempt of Courts Act on C.R. No. 5172 of 2006 5 the ground that equally efficacious remedy was available under O.39, C.P.C. IN none of the decisions of this court or the ones noticed above, the observations made by the Supreme Court in Rani Sonabati Kumari's case ( AIR 1961 SC 221) (supra) were taken notice of. The matter came up for direct consideration before S.C. Mathur, J. of Allahabad High Court in Sheo Kumar Saxena v. Zila Sakhari Vikas Sangh Gonda AIR 1983 All 180 who relying on the said Supreme Court decision held that after a temporary injunction has been vacated, it cannot be enforced or executed and, therefore, punitive action also cannot be taken after its vacation. We fully endorse this view and hold that no proceedings can be initiated or action taken under Rule 2-A against a person guilty of disobedience or breach of ad interim injunction after it has been vacated. Nothing said herein before, however, would debar the taking or proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act in spite of the vacation of the ad interim injunction against the person guilty of its breach C.R. No. 5172 of 2006 6 during the period it remains in force.” This Court again in the case of Darshan Singh Vs. Sadha Singh & Ors. 2002(3) Civil Court Cases 228 (P&H) has been pleased to lay down that the proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC cannot be continued after the order of interim injunction has been vacated by virtue of dismissal of the suit. Accordingly, this revision is allowed, the impugned orders are set aside and the application moved by the plaintiff / respondents under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure is ordered to be dismissed. 17.8.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE