ravisharma 23 May 2018
Kumar Doab (FIN) 23 May 2018
Bare acts > Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 > Order 39 Rule 2 A:
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 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 tone 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.
HIGH COURT AMENDMENT
Patna.- Insert the words and figures or Section 151” after the word and figure “Rule 2” and before the words “or breach of any”, (Noti. No. 2431R. dated 3.8.1979).
https://www.lawzonline.com/bareacts/civil-procedure-code/order39-rule2A-code-of-civil-procedure.htm
Kumar Doab (FIN) 23 May 2018
The effective remedy lies within the code itself.
Karnataka High Court
Rudraiah vs State Of Karnataka And Ors
5….. when special procedure and special provision are contained in the C. P. C. itself under Order 39 Rule 2A for taking action for the disobedience of an order of injunction, the general law of contempt of Court cannot be invoked. If such a course encouraged holding that it amounts to contempt of court, when an order of subordinate court is not obeyed, it is sure to throw open a floodgate of litigation under contempt jurisdiction. Every decree-holder can rush to this court stating that the decree passed by a subordinate court is not obeyed. That is not the purpose of Contempt of Courts Act.
7… which can be entertained and enquired into more properly under Rule 2A of Order 39 C. P. C. cannot entertained under contempt jurisdiction and accordingly we dismiss it.
8. Petition dismissed.
Kumar Doab (FIN) 23 May 2018
Also go thru;
The orders passed in proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A as well as the orders passed in execution proceedings under Order XXI. Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure are appealable orders. Further the proceedings under Order Order XXXIX Rule 2-A as well as execution proceedings under Order XXI, Rule 32 are elaborate proceedings in which the parties can adduce their evidence and they can examine and cross-examine the witnesses. As opposed to this this, the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act are of summary nature. In my opinion, a person who has got an effective alternative remedy of the nature specified under Order XXXIX, Rule 2-A or under Order XXI, Rule 32, Civil P.C.should not be permitted to skip over that remedy and take resort to initiate proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act. The least that can be said is that it would not be a proper exercise of discretion on the part of this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act when such an effective and alternative remedy is available to any person. I am fortified in taking this view by the observations made in Ram Rup Pandey v. R.K. Bhargava, (AIR 1971 All 231) and Calcutta Medical Stores v. Stadmed Private Ltd., ((1977) 81 Cal WN 209). Relying on these two decisions I myself took the same view recently in Abdul Sattar v. Hira Lal (Civil Misc. Contempt Case No. 96 of 1979 decided on 20-2-1981)."
Contempt of court is essentially a matter which concerns the administration of justice and the dignity and authority of courts and judicial tribunals. It is not a right of a party to be invoked for the redress of his grievances. It is also not a mode by which the rights of a party, adjudicated upon by a Court or Tribunal can be enforced against another party. Moreover, if the matter, as in the present case, requires a detailed enquiry, it must be left to the court which passed the order and which presumably is fully acquainted with the subject-matter of its own order. When the matter relates to mere infringement of an order, as between parties, it is clearly inexpedient to invoke and exercise contempt jurisdiction as a mode of executing the order, merely because other remedies may take time or are more circumlocutory in character. Contempt jurisdiction should be reserved for what essentially brings the administration of justice into contempt or unduly weakens it.
For the aforesaid facts and reasons, an application under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for alleged violation of a temporary injunction granted by the civil court is not liable to be entertained under the contempt jurisdiction and accordingly stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 18.9.2013
nd
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 40
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 4384 of 2013
Applicant :- Sajal Kumar Singh
Opposite Party :- Surya Bali Singh,And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Srivastava
Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.
https://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do
Kumar Doab (FIN) 23 May 2018
And;
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 > Order 39 Rule 2A deals with the power to enforce the order passed by the Court and impose the punishment
1. This writ petition reveals a very sorry state of affair, wherein the learned civil court and the revisional court expressed their inability to enforce the order passed by them, leaving the hapless litigant on the mercy of the so called police administration.
4. Order XXXIX, Rule 2A deals with the power to enforce the order passed by the Court and impose the punishment. It is settled legal proposition that any action taken in contravention of the order of the Court is a nullity as having been done in disobedience of the interim order of the Court.
19… There must be extraordinary situation or circumstances, which may warrant a different approach, where the orders passed by a Court are sought to be violated or thwarted with impunity. The Court cannot be a silent spectator in such extraordinary situation.
(Emphasis added)
20. If such a course is not resorted to, the very existence of the Courts, i.e., judicial system will come in the jeopardy.
Allahabad High Court
Smt. Jagannathiya vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 25 May, 2006
Kumar Doab (FIN) 23 May 2018
And;
13. Feeling aggrieved, FCI filed an appeal (FAFO No. 343/2005) before the Allahabad High Court. The High Court dismissed the appeal by a brief order dated 6.3.2006, without prejudice to the rights of FCI to challenge the order of injunction, with an observation that it was not competent to consider the validity of the `injunction order' in an appeal against an order passed under order 39 Rule 2A of the Code, for disobedience of the `injunction order'. The High Court assumed that in the appeal against the order dated 15.12.2004 passed under Order 39 Rule 2A, FCI was trying to challenge the validity of the `injunction order' dated 27.5.1996.
21. At all events, if a garnishee, or a defendant, who is directed to pay any sum of money, does not pay the amount, the remedy is to levy execution and not in an action for contempt or disobedience/breach under order 39 Rule 2A. This is evident from Rule 46B of Order 21 read with Rule 11A of Order 38 of the Code. Contempt jurisdiction, either under the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, or under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code, is not intended to be used for enforcement of money decrees or directions/orders for payment of money. The process and concept of execution is different from process and concept of action for disobedience/contempt. Re : Question (iii)
24…The power exercised by a court under order 39 Rule 2A of the Code is punitive in nature, akin to the power to punish for civil contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
26. It is unfortunate that the High Court has failed to even refer to these aspects and has dismissed the appeal on a wholly baseless and erroneous assumption that the appellant was trying to challenge only the order dated 27.5.1996, in the appeal against the order dated 15.12.2004. We feel dismayed that when a huge liability of Rs.1,12,24,792.99 was sought to be created on the FCI in a proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2A, the High Court did not even bother to refer to the facts and merits, and chose to summarily dispose of the appeal thereby allowing perpetration of a patent abuse of process of court by the respondent. The travails of the FCI could have been avoided if the trial court and the High Court had been diligent to ensure that its process were not misused and abused by the respondent.
Conclusion
27. We therefore allow this appeal with costs of Rs.25,000/- payable by respondent, set aside the order of the High Court and the trial court and dismiss the application filed by the respondent under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code.
Supreme Court of India
Food Corporation Of India vs Sukh Prasad on 24 March, 2009
Author: R.V.Raveendran
Bench: R.V. Raveendran, Markandey Katju
Kumar Doab (FIN) 23 May 2018
Apparently one party has disobeyed the court.
Your (Palntiff’s) counsel might have filed fresh application with necessary affidavits and might have given copies to all parties and/or proceeded to issue court notice per laid procedures of rules of the jurisdictional HC.
You may go thru;
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMP No. 158 of 2012 in RSA No. 110 of 2007 alongwith Review Petition No.133 of 2015 Reserved on:11.7.2017 Decided on: 27.7. 2017 Kaushalya Devi. …Applicant/appellant. Versus Kaushalaya Devi and others. …Respondents.
53..It is surprising, if not shocking, that inspite of the application lying pending for such a long time and despite the respondents having sufficient time at their disposal neither tendered apology nor offered to purge the contempt. There is no remorse whatsoever on their part. Therefore, this Court is left with no other option to allow the application by directing the respondents to first purge the contempt.
Kumar Doab (FIN) 23 May 2018
And;
2… 04.06.2015 Present Civil Application i.e. Civil Application No. 6510 of 2015 came to be filed. In the present civil application, it is the say of the applicant that despite the order of status quo of this Court the defendants have entered into registered sale transaction and thereby he has violated the order of this Court. Hence, application under Section 39 Rule 2(A) of the Civil Procedure Code.
7.. On Sat Mar 19 01:59:52 IST 2016 C/CA/6510/2015 ORDER suit land. The plaintiff applied to take action under Order 39 Rule 2(a) of the CPC. This Court passed the order of seven days imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1 lac.
16. In view of above discussion and considering the facts and circumstances of th present case, the applicant No.10 is hereby directed to undergo 7 days' civil imprisonment and shall pay fine of Rs.5000/. Accordingly, present civil application stands disposed of.
Gujarat High Court
Velbai vs Natha Harji Halai & 13 on 16 March, 2016
C/CA/6510/2015 ORDER
Kumar Doab (FIN) 23 May 2018
Take help of a very able counsel to defend your interest.
ravisharma 24 May 2018
but what is the limitation period for the same application.
Member Strength 9,47,822 and growing..
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
