BHALLA Vs. RAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of a Single Judge of this Court convicting the appellants under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act and sentencing them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months each and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. The facts :-

(2.) NIHALA and others have filed a civil suit for permanent injunction restraining Ram Singh and others from interfering in their peaceful possession. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 was also filed and the same came up for hearing before the trial Judge, Kaithal, on 30.4.1983 and the following other was passed :-

(3.) PRITAM Singh and others moved this Court for initiating contempt proceedings against the appellants for infringing the interim order dated 7.5.1983. The appellants have also moved the trial Judge for similar type of relief which was granted to them on April 30, 1983., The respondents for the reasons undisclosed did not move the trial Judge for taking action against the appellants under Order 39, Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code'). If a person is aggrieved against infringement of any order passed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code, he can move the Court for initiating action under Order 39, Rule 2-A of the Code. Order 39, Rule 2-A of the Code is exhaustive. The Court on its being satisfied that the order of injunction was disobeyed by the other party, could either attach the property of the person concerned or direct him that he be detained in Civil Prison. There are alternative punishments provided under Order 39, Rule 2-A of the Code. The counsel for the respondents could not give any justification for the invoking the jurisdiction of trial Court by moving a petition under Order 39, Rule 2-A of the Code, for disobeying the injunction order issued under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code. Apart from this, the appellants had moved the Civil Court and had got a restraint order against the respondents from interfering in their possession. Thus, both the parties were alleging that they were in possession and in this situation, the interest of justice required that aggrieved party would could have taken resort under the provisions of Order 39, Rule 2-A of the Code. The respondents were not justified in moving this Court for initiating contempt proceedings against the appellants. We are satisfied that on the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the initiation of the contempt proceedings were wholly unjustified. Resultantly, the conviction cannot be sustained.