Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 242 (ALL)

Must Ram and Another v. Ram Abhilakh and Others

2011-01-31

ANIL KUMAR

body2011
Hon’ble Anil Kumar,J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. Present contempt petition has been filed under Section 12 of the Contempt Court Act for the alleged non-compliance of the order dated 10.12.2010 passed in pending Second Appeal No.375 of 2008(Mastram v. Ram Abilakh), the operative portion of the same is as under :- “Till the next date of listing, parties are directed to maintain status quo at the spot, as of today.” 3. As per the version of the applicant, the present contempt petition has been filed on the ground that the respondent has violated the order dated 10.12.2010 passed by this Court in pending Second Appeal No. 375 of 2008(Mastram v. Ram Abilakh), so they are liable to be punished. 4. Needless to mention herein that in a second appeal, an interim order/injunction order is granted by Court in view of the provisions as provided under order XXXIX Rule 10 C.P.C. In case, if there is any breach or disobedience of the said order passed by Court, for disobedience of the same, the procedure is provided under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A C.P.C. which is as under :- “2-A. Consequence of disobedience or breach of injunction - (1) In the case of disobedience of any injunction granted or other order made under Rule I or Rule 2 or breach of any of the terms on which the injunction was granted or the order made, of 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 civil prison for a term not exceeding three months unless in the meantime the court directs his release.” 5. Accordingly, in view of the above said facts, the question which rises for consideration in the instant case that in case if an alternative remedy under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A C.P.C. is available to the appellants for breach of the order dated 10.12.2010 passed in pending second appeal, then in that circumstances, whether the present contempt petition filed by him is maintainable or not. The answer to the above said question lies in the following judgments. 6. The answer to the above said question lies in the following judgments. 6. In the case of S.G. Pagaree v. Zonal Manager, Food Coropration of India, New Delhi and others, reported in 1987 AWC 506 , it is held by this Court that where alternative remedy under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A C.P.C. is available, proceeding under the contempt Courts Act should not be taken. 7. In the case of Pratap Narain v. Smt. Nomita Roy and others, reported in 1984 AWC 567 , the similar view was also expressed and it was held that remedy under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A C.P.C. is far more adequate and satisfactory remedy as disobedience of an injunction order of the Court below is involved. 8. In the case of Savitri Devi(Smt.) v. Civil Judge(J.D.), Gorakhpur and others, 2003 (1) ARC 545, it is held that in view of the above discussion, once reaches the inescapable conclusion that proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A are quashi-criminal in nature and are meant to maintain the dignity of the Court in the eyes of the people so that the supremacy of law may prevail and to deter the people for mustering the courage to disobey the interim injunction passed by the Court. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the present contempt petition filed by the applicants under Section 12 of the Contempt Court’s Act for alleged non-compliance of the interim order/injunction order granted by this Court in pending second appeal is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 11. No order as to costs. 12. However, as prayed by the learned counsel for the applicants, it will be open to the applicants to approach before appropriate Forum for redressal of his grievances, if they so advised. (Petition dismissed) _____________