SUKUMA PANIGRAHI Vs. SATYABHAMA PANIGRAHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS matter has come before us upon a reference by S.C. Mohapatra, J. the point involved in this case is short and simple. The point that falls for determination is whether an order of temporary injunction passed in presence of the lawyer for the party is sufficient notice of injunction to the party itself. According to the learned Judge, Order 39, Rule 2 -A, Code of Civil Procedure is penal in nature and when drastic action under such provision is intended to be taken, notice to the lawyer by itself should not be sufficient for penalising the party violating the order of injunction. The learned Judge doubted the correctness of the decision reported in : 24 (1958) C.L.T. 287 : AIR 1958 Orissa 253 Arjun Jena and Anr. v. Brahmananda Pani and Ors.

(2.) THE facts lie in a short compass and may be summarised as follows:

(3.) THE opposite party has filed a counter wherein she had denied violation of the order of the Court. She claims that she was unaware of the order of the Court dated 19.1992 till her counsel had informed her about the order of the Court on 18.9.1992. She stated that the sale deed was executed on 15.9.1992 before she had knowledge of the order of the Court dated Ist September, 1992.