Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2631 (ALL)

Ram Sewak v. Siya Ram

2014-08-27

ANIL KUMAR

body2014
JUDGMENT Anil Kumar,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record. 2. Initially Sri Raja Ram (now deceased) substituted by his legal representative/ Sri Ram Sewak has filed second appeal no.707 of 2003 before this Court. On 8.7.2003 an interim injunction/ order has been granted, the same reads as under : - "Till then status-quo shall be maintained." 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in spite of the service of the said order, the respondents are willfully and deliberately disobeyed the same , so the present contempt petition has been filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court's Act to initiate the contempt proceedings against them. 4. It is late in a day to quarrel that if in a second appeal, an interim order/injunction order is granted by Court under order XXXIX Rule 1& 2 C.P.C. if there is any breach or disobedience of the said order then statutory remedy available to the appellant is 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. Thus, an alternative remedy provided under Order XXXIX Rule 2 (a) C.P.C. is available to the appellants for breach of the order dated 8.7.2003 passed in Second Appeal No.707 of 2003, present contempt petition filed by him is not maintainable for alleged disobedience of the same as held by this Court in the following judgments: - 6. In the case of S.G. Pagaree Vs. 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 Vs. In the case of S.G. Pagaree Vs. 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 Vs. 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.) Vs. 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. Further, this Court on 20.8.2014 this Court has passed an order , the same is quoted herein below: - "This is a contempt application under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court's Act, 1971 in respect of an interim order passed in a pending Second Appeal. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case it would be in the fitness of things that this application is also dealt with by learned Judge hearing the second appeal treating the application to be under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of C.P.C. Put up on 27.08.2014 before appropriate Court, subject to His Lordship's convenience after obtaining nomination from Hon'ble the Chief Justice" 11. In pursuance of the same , after obtaining nomination/ order from Hon'ble the Chief Justice, matter has been placed before this Court. 12. As stated above, if there is violation of any interim injunction/ order granted in second appeal, the contempt petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court's Act is not maintainable and the remedy available to the applicant under Order XXXIX Rule 2 A of C.P.C. 13. 12. As stated above, if there is violation of any interim injunction/ order granted in second appeal, the contempt petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court's Act is not maintainable and the remedy available to the applicant under Order XXXIX Rule 2 A of C.P.C. 13. Keeping in view the said fact and the law stated herein above as well as the order dated 20.8.2014 passed in the matter in question that the contempt petition may be treated as application under Order XXXIX Rule 2 A of C.P.C. is not in accordance with law which governs the field, so contempt petition filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court's Act cannot be treated as application under Order XXXIX Rule 2 A of C.P.C. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the present contempt petition filed by the applicant 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. 15. Accordingly, the present contempt petition is dismissed. However, as prayed on behalf of the applicant, he is permitted to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance raised in the present contempt petition, if so advised. 16. No order as to costs.