(1.) One of the questions involved in these revisions is whether the defendants in the suit can be ordered to be detained in civil prison under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure for violation of the interim order passed by the court, when the suit was ultimately dismissed. The suit filed by the respondents was dismissed on 30.08.1999 and on the same day as per the order in I.A. Nos. 1913 of 1998 and 1981 of 1998, the court held that the revision petitioners have violated the interim order passed by the trial Court and they were ordered to be detained in the civil prison for a period of 30 days each. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners-defendants against whom applications under Order 39 Rule 2A were filed, relies on the decision in Vasu v. Thankamma,1981 KerLT 248). Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla v. Hind Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd., 1997 AIR(SC) 1240) and contends that the dictum laid down in 1981 KerLT 248 is no longer good in view of the Supreme Court decision.
(2.) In Vasu v. Thankamma, the allegation was that the defendant, against whom an order of injunction was in force, violated that order. The violation was alleged to have been made in the year 1976 and the plaintiff filed an application under Rule 2A Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 16.02.1978. The suit was dismissed on 25.02.1978. Long thereafter, the trial Court passed an order in the application for taking action for violation of injunction and held that the defendant had violated the order. In the revision filed by the defendant challenging that order, it was held that the trial Court could not have passed the impugned order. This court held thus :
(3.) The question that came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla v. Hind Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd., 1997 AIR(SC) 1240, was whether an application under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure could be maintained for violation of an order passed by the civil court when the civil court has ultimately held that it has no jurisdiction to try the suit. The High Court took the view that defendants could not be proceeded under Rule 2A Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure for violation of an interim order in such a case. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not right in holding so. It was held thus: