Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2083 (ALL)

Dinesh Kumar Singh v. Rakesh Kumar Singh

2012-09-10

HET SINGH YADAV, SATYA POOT MEHROTRA

body2012
JUDGMENT Satya Poot Mehrotra and Het Singh Yadav,JJ. Pursuant to the order dated 30.7.2012, the case is listed today. 2. Learned counsel for the parties are present. 3. Shri Gulrez Khan, holding brief for Shri J.H. Khan, learned counsel for the Plaintiff/Appellant in the Appeal and learned counsel for the Applicant in Civil Misc. Contempt Application No. 48063 of 2011 states that the Plaintiff/Appellant does not want to pursue the present Appeal any further, and he wants to withdraw the same and, therefore, the present Appeal may be dismissed as withdrawn. 4. Civil Misc Withdrawal Application No. 263537 of 2012 has also been filed on behalf of the Plaintiff/Appellant making similar prayer. 5. The aforesaid Withdrawal Application is supported by an Affidavit sworn by Dinesh Kumar ( Plaintiff/Appellant) on 5.9.2012. 6. Shri Adil Jamal holding brief for Shri Jamal Ali, learned counsel for the Defendant/Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the Defendant/Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have no objection to the prayer made on behalf of the Plaintiff/Appellant being granted. 7. In view of the statement made by Shri Gulrez Khan, holding brief for Shri J.H. Khan and in view of the averments made in the aforesaid Withdrawal Application and its accompanying Affidavit, the present Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. 8. The Temporary Injuction Order dated 6.3.2006 granted in the present Appeal stands vacated. 9. It is made clear that no liberty is being given to the Plaintiff/Appellant for filing fresh Appeal on the same cause of action. 10. As regards the aforementioned Contempt Application, it is noteworthy that the said application was filed in the present Appeal under the provisions of Order 39, Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 10/12 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 on the ground of the alleged disobedience /breach of the Injunction Order dated 6.3.2006 granted by this Court in the present Appeal. 11. Rule 2-A of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with consequence of disobedience or breach of the injunction order granted under Rule 1 or Rule 2 of Order 39. 12. In other words, Rule 2-A of Order 39 deals with consequence of disobedience or breach of temporary injunction granted during the pendency of a Suit. 11. Rule 2-A of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with consequence of disobedience or breach of the injunction order granted under Rule 1 or Rule 2 of Order 39. 12. In other words, Rule 2-A of Order 39 deals with consequence of disobedience or breach of temporary injunction granted during the pendency of a Suit. Once the temporary injunction order is vacated either during pendency of the Suit or on the dismissal of the Suit, rationale for continuing with the proceedings under Order 39, Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure comes to an end, and such proceedings are also liable to be terminated. Reference in this regard may be made to the decision of this Court given in the case of Sheo Kumar Saxena V. Zilas Sahkari Vikas Sangh, Gonda and others. reported in AIR 1983 Allahabad 180 (L.B.). 13. In the said decision, this Court has laid down that after the temporary injunction has been vacated, it can not be enforced or executed and, therefore, punitive action for its breach can not also be taken after its vacation. 14. In view of the above, it is evident that once the present Appeal has been dismissed as withdrawn and the Temporary Injunction Order dated 6.3.2006 stands vacated, there is no rationale for continuing with the proceedings in the aforementioned Contempt Application. 15. The aforementioned Contempt Application has evidently became infructuous, and the same is liable to be dismissed as such. 16. The aforementioned Contempt Application is accordingly dismissed as having become infructuous. Notices issued on the aforementioned Contempt Application stand discharged.