NIRANIAN SHUKLA Vs. SHANKER SHUKLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHANKAR Shukla, plaintiff opposite party filed a suit for permanent in junction restraining the applicants from changing the nature of the land in suit and for possession. An application for an inte rim injunction under Order 39, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code was also made. The trial Court granted the injunction and directed that the status quo shall be maintained. During the pendency of the injunction the defendant- applicants disobeyed the injunc tion. An application under Order 39, R. 2-A as amended by this Court was then moved by the opposite party for taking action against the defendant-applicants for the disobedience of the injunction. The trial Court ordered the detention of the appli cants in Civil prison for a period of 20 days. Against the order of the learned Munsif an appeal was filed by the applicants. The learned Civil Judge who heard the appeal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the trial Court, hence this revi sion.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the appli cant has contended that under Order 39, Rule 2-A it was the duty of the Court to order attachment of the property for breach of an injunction order and the order of de tention in civil prison without the substan tive punishment of attachment of the pro perty was bad in law. Order 39, Rule 2 (1) of the Civil Procedure Code empowers the Court to issue an injunction in certain cases. It is in these words:--