ANAND KUMAR DEEPAK KUMAR Vs. HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondents as to the maintainability of these contempt petitions before this Court. The question raised by the learned counsel for the respondents is that there is a specific provision under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which provides the remedy for violation of an interim injunction passed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the said Code. That remedy is provided by Order 39 Rule 2A. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the provisions of Order 39 Rule 2A are both remedial and punitive. He submits that in the present case, the contempt petitions have been filed stating that there have been violations of the injunction order passed by this Court on 12.5.1999 in CS (OS) 65/1992. The suit has since been transferred to the District Court in view of the raising of the bar of pecuniary jurisdiction. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, a contempt petition under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 does not lie at all and the only remedy for the petitioner is by way of filing an application under Order 39 Rule 2A. He submitted that the contempt petitions, in question, were filed essentially under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. Although, the provisions of Order 39 Rule 2A have also been mentioned.

(2.) IN support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Govind Sarda v Sartaj Hotels Apartments and Villas Pvt. Ltd and Ors.: 130 (2006) DLT 460. In paragraph 4 of the said decision, it was observed that there was no dispute that if any action under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC was to be taken the same will lie before the District Judge/Additional District Judge before whom the suit was pending. It was further observed that if an action under the Contempt of Courts Act was sought to be taken, then this Court would have the jurisdiction. The issue before the Court was whether a violation of an injunction order passed under Order 39 Rules 1 And 2 CPC could be remedied and/or dealt with under the Contempt of Courts Act when specific provisions under Order 39 Rule 2A were available. After referring to a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Dr. Bimal Chand Sen v. Mr.s Kamla Mathur : 1982 RLR 553, the learned Judge arrived at the following conclusion :-

(3.) FINALLY , the learned counsel for the respondents referred to the decision of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Allahabad in the case of Smt. Indu Tewari v. Ram Bahadur Chaudhari and Others: AIR 1981 Allahabad 309. He placed reliance on paragraph 3 thereof which reads as under :-