Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 107 (UTT)

MADHUBALA v. VIRENDRA SINGH

2012-03-14

V.K.BIST

body2012
JUDGMENT Respondents instituted Civil Suit No. 8 of 2000 in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.), Haldwani to restrain the petitioner from interfering in the land shown in the map annexed with the plaint. Respondents also filed an application under Order XXXIV Rule 1 of C.P.C. On 01.02.2000, the Civil Judge (J.D.), Haldwani granted ex-parte interim injunction, restraining the petitioner from interfering in the land in dispute. After receiving the notice of suit; the petitioner filed her objection. The petitioner also filed an application for spot inspection of the site for bringing real picture on record. However, said application of the petitioner was rejected. In the meantime, the respondents also moved an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of C.P.C., stating that the petitioner came over the part of the land in suit on 09.02.2000 with intention to take possession started changing nature of the land and also started digging the same. Prayer was made for punishing the petitioner for violating the injunction order. Objection to said application was filed by the petitioner. The Civil Judge (J.D.), Haldwani passed an order on 08.12.2006, holding the petitioner guilty of disobedience of ex-parte injunction order dated 01.02.2000 and petitioner was ordered to undergo imprisonment of 14 days. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed Appeal No. 05 of 2007, which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Haldwani on 15.09.2009. Thereafter, present petition was filed challenging the orders dated 15.09.2009 and 01.02.2000. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Shri Bhupender Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition, civil suit instituted by the respondents has been dismissed and interim order dated 01.02.2000 has come to an end. He argued that since the suit itself has been dismissed and interim order has come to an end, the petitioner cannot be punished for violating the interim order dated 01.02.2000 and orders passed by the Courts below, punishing the petitioner for violating interim injunction order, deserves to be set aside. 4. Shri J.C. Belwal, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that atthe time when the petitioner violated the order, the interim injunction order dated 01.02.2000 was in operation and in view of this fact, the order passed by the trial Court, punishing the petitioner under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the C.P.C., does not require interference. 5. 4. Shri J.C. Belwal, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that atthe time when the petitioner violated the order, the interim injunction order dated 01.02.2000 was in operation and in view of this fact, the order passed by the trial Court, punishing the petitioner under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the C.P.C., does not require interference. 5. The question for determination in the present appeal is that whether the person against whom an interim injunction had been granted, can be punished under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the C.P.C. after the dismissal of suit in which the said interim injunction was granted? 6. Rule 1 and 2 of Order XXXIX empower the Court to grant temporary injunction, whereas Rule 2-A prescribes the consequence of disobedience or breach of injunction. Rule 2-A is being reproduced below: “[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 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.] Clause (1) of Rule 2-A of Order XXXIX provides two consequences. First, the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached and secondly, such person may be detained in civil prison maximum for a period of three months. In the present case, the petitioner was punished for imprisonment for a period of 15 days for violating the interim injunction order. First, the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached and secondly, such person may be detained in civil prison maximum for a period of three months. In the present case, the petitioner was punished for imprisonment for a period of 15 days for violating the interim injunction order. Now, the learned trial Court has dismissed the suit and the interim injunction granted by the trial Court on 01.02.2000, has been vacated by the final order. Thus, it is clear that the trial Court not only considered the question whether interim injunction deserves to be continued, but also considered the question whether respondents were at all entitled for any such relief. Since, the trial Court came to the conclusion that respondents/plaintiffs were not entitled for any relief and dismissed the suit, the petitioner/defendant cannot be punished for the violation of interim injunction order dated 01.02.2000. No person can be punished for violation of interim order under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of C.P.C. after the dismissal of suit. 7. In view of above discussion, the writ petition is allowed. Orders dated 08.12.2006 and 10.01.2007 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.), Haldwani in Misc. Case no.12 of 2000 and the order dated 15.09.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Haldwani in Misc. Civil Appeal NO.5 of 2007, are quashed.