JUDGMENT : Plaintiff/petitioner in I.A.No.639 of 2004 in O.S.No.126 of 1995 on the files of the Sub Court, Pathanamthitta, has filed this appeal under Section 104 read with Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure (`CPC’ for short hereafter), challenging order in the above petition dated 31.01.2004, whereby the learned Sub Judge dismissed the same filed under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC, after finding that the interim order of injunction restraining the respondents from executing any documents in respect of plaint schedule property and building, making any structural alterations or from inducting strangers into possession as per order in I.A.No.311/1995 granted by the vacation court (I.A.No.389/1995 on the files of Sub Court) had been violated by the respondents by executing Exts.A6 to A8 sale deeds. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner/plaintiff and the learned counsel for the respondents/respondents/defendants. 3. In this matter, the allegation is that Exts.A6 to A8 sale deeds were executed by defendants 1 and 2 in violation of the interim order of injunction. On evidence, violation of order of injunction is rightly found by the trial court and the same is not challenged at all. 4. According to the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner/plaintiff, the trial court went wrong in dismissing the application after holding that the respondents had violated the order of injunction passed against them by executing Exts.A6 to A8. The learned counsel would assert that the trial court ought not have dismissed the petition and the trial court should have imposed punishment upon respondents 1 and 2 taking into the spirit of Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC. 5. Now the 1 st and 2 nd respondents in this I.A are no more. The learned counsel for the legal representatives of the respondents argued that Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC is not punitive in nature and the intent is only to enforce compliance of an order passed by the civil court. Since the respondents are no more, the legal representatives could not be proceeded under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC. Therefore, the order doesn’t require any interference. 6. In view of the rival submissions, the questions arise for consideration are: (i) Whether Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC is purely punitive in nature or the intent behind this provision is to enforce compliance of an order passed by a civil court? Therefore, the order doesn’t require any interference. 6. In view of the rival submissions, the questions arise for consideration are: (i) Whether Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC is purely punitive in nature or the intent behind this provision is to enforce compliance of an order passed by a civil court? (ii)Whether the trial court went wrong in not opting punitive measures after finding violation of the order of injunction granted by the court? (iii) Reliefs and costs. 7. In this connection it is relevant to refer Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC which deals with `consequence of disobedience or breach of injunction’ and provides 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 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.‘ 8. In fact, Order XXXIX Rule 2A meets two contingencies: viz., (1) when an order is not complied with by a party and the ensuing recourse in case of such non-compliance; and (2) when an order is not complied by a party and the non-compliance has been continuing. In the case of non-compliance of an order, a court is empowered to attach the property of the person guilty of violation of the order and sentence him for violation of the order. In the case of non-compliance of an order, a court is empowered to attach the property of the person guilty of violation of the order and sentence him for violation of the order. However the order of attachment shall remain in force only for a period of one year, and if the person guilty of violation of the order does not comply with the order within that period, then the property attached may be sold and the injured party may be compensated from the proceeds of such property. Similarly, detention of the violator in civil prison is possible only for a period of three months. Thus, Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC provides for a mechanism to ensure compliance of the order of a court by provisionally attaching the property of the person guilty of violation of the order. No doubt sentence can also be imposed on the person guilty of violation of the order. 9. Reading the provisions, an order of attachment of the property of the person guilty of violation of the order of injunction and also sending the person to be detained in civil prison for a term not exceeding three months are preceded by the word `may’. So, the intent of Order XXXIX Rule 2A is not mandatory but discretionary in nature. However, in order to ensure that court orders are obeyed without being violated, the court can exercise the discretion in both ways, invariably taking into account of the facts of each case.The court can also opt between two measures or go with both measures. Thus, imprisonment dealt under Order XXXIX Rule 2A is not intrinsically punitive, but a measure for ensuring compliance of orders of a civil court with caution of imprisonment, though imprisonment also may very well be resorted to. Even though the Order provides for the power to punish, it has to be sparingly resorted to in deserving cases. No doubt, that does not take away the power of the courts to punish, or restrict its scope only to ensure compliance, as the Order explicitly provides for the consequence of disobedience or breach of an order passed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC. No doubt, that does not take away the power of the courts to punish, or restrict its scope only to ensure compliance, as the Order explicitly provides for the consequence of disobedience or breach of an order passed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC. Therefore, while interpreting Order XXXIX Rule 2A, a purposive approach of interpretation has to be resorted to by the courts without defeating the very ethos of a procedural law and also to not let a violator to escape from the orbit of the rule of law. 10. Therefore, in an appropriate case even after finding that there is violation of order of injunction granted by the court, the court can dispense with punitive steps or attachment for valid reasons. Suppose on filing application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A, the violation is addressed and stopped by the person guilty of such disobedience, further action under Order XXXIX Rule 2A can be well avoided to meet the ends of justice. In the instant case, as of now, the 1 st and 2 nd respondents are no more. Now as per the judgment in R.F.A.No.491/2005, the decree granted by the trial court to get recovery of possession of the property at the instance of the plaintiff, who is the petitioner herein, is confirmed. That apart, imposing punishment on the legal heirs of the person/persons guilty of violation of the order could not be invoked. Thus as conceded by the learned counsel for the appellant, I am not inclined to revisit the order of the year 2005 passed in a suit of the year 1995. 11. Accordingly, this F.A.O is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the trial court forthwith.