DARSHAN SINGH Vs. SARUP SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE civil revision is against the order of injunction issued against the defendant from carrying on with a construction in alleged unauthorized occupation. That the construction was completed after the institution of the suit and when there was a subsistence of order of injunction, is not dispute. After the grant of injunction, suit itself was decreed directing the removal of the alleged unauthorized construction but in appeal to the Appellate Court, it appears that the Appellate Court found that the construction was not unauthorized and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. However, the Appellate Court found the petitioner guilty of disobedience of the order of injunction. It is against the Appellate Court's order finding him guilty this revision petition has been filed. It is a matter of independent litigative history that the plaintiff had come to this Court in regular second appeal in RSA No. 77 of 1992 against the Appellate Court's judgment and in the second appeal, judgment of the Appellate Court has been set aside and remanded for fresh disposal to the 1st Appellate Court. The case is still reported to be pending for consideration before the Appellate Court. To a plea by the petitioner, who had filed a suit for injunction that the respondent had been guilty of disobedience, the contention was that since the order of injunction itself had been vacated and the characterisation of the respondent that he had been in unauthorized occupation was itself rejected by the Court below, he cannot be said to be a person in contempt.

(2.) IN an issue of contempt, the relevance always is whether there has been a breach of order of restraint by the Court or not. It has to do with upholding the majesty of the Court and to retain the integrity for the order and shall not be seen in the context of a post facto assessment whether the injunction was allowed to be continued or not. This point has been considered and the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is fair to bring before me a decision that holds against the contention raised in the grounds in Samee Khan Vs. Bindu Khan : AIR 1998 SC 2765 where the Supreme Court has held that while applying Rule 2A of Order 39 CPC, even if the injunction order was set aside, the disobedience does not get erased and the contemner can still be punished for the disobedience. In Patel Rajnikant Dhulabhai and another Vs. Patel Chandrakant Dhulabhai and others : AIR 2008 SC 3016, the Court was imposing a punishment to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two weeks and held that an apology is neither a weapon of defence to purge the guilty their offence nor is it intended to operate as a universal panacea. Apology shall not be paper apology and expression of sorrow should come from the heart and not from the pen. The Court reiterated the principle already laid in Samee Khan's case (supra) and held that disobedience of the order of injunction will amount to contempt of Court. Yet another judgment reiterating the same proposition comes about by the decision in Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla Vs. Hind Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. : 1997 (3) SCC 443. The Court was holding that even a mere objection to jurisdiction does not instantly disable the court from passing any interim orders and interim orders so passed are orders within jurisdiction and will be effective till the court decides that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. This is to the effect that a Court that finds itself not to have jurisdiction to entertain the suit subsequently but it had issued the order of injunction on such assumption of jurisdiction earlier will still be valid order and enforceable against whom the order was passed. The decisions are too many to replicate which only say that that the petitioner had been guilty of disobedience of the order of injunction. Learned counsel states that the petitioner is more than 70 years of age and he is truly sorry about the incident. If there is any mitigating factor in this case, the mitigating factor is that the Court found that he was not in unauthorized occupation and that the order of injunction that had been granted originally was required to be vacated. This cannot still purge him of the disobedience of the Court. The Court exercising jurisdiction under Order 39 Rule 2A does not exercise power of contempt. The disobedience results in either an attachment of property or imprisonment. In this case, since the matter is before this Court, I will not take this as a circumstance requiring either an attachment of property or imprisonment for any term but I will instead direct the punishment of Rs. 25,000/ - as payable by the petitioner. The amount fine shall be paid to the plaintiff at whose instance the order of injunction had been originally issued. The civil revision is disposed of as above.