IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Breach of injunction – Any undertaking given to Court cannot be without requisite authority from client – Lawyer is to respect decision-making right of client.
(2) Powers of contempt of Court have been provided for the purposes of ensuring that dignity and majesty of law is always maintained – When there has been express violation of order of Court, exercise of contempt jurisdiction cannot be faulted with.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Karol, J.

1. This appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 23rd February 2021/16th March, 2021 passed in Miscellaneous First Appeal No.7055/2013(CPC) by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, whereby the respondents before the High Court, appellants herein (defendants in Trial Court), were held guilty of disobedience of their undertaking before the Trial Court of not alienating the property, subject matter of the suit.

The original defendants in the Trial Court through their counsel gave an undertaking which was allegedly disobeyed. The plaintiffs aggrieved thereby filed the case, which was dismissed, and they appealed to the High Court, ultimately resulting in a favourable order. The original defendants now aggrieved by being held in contempt, are appellants herein.

2. A brief resume of facts leading to the appeal are :

2.1 The respondents herein were the original plaintiffs in Original Suit No.4191 of 2007 seeking a declaration to the effect that agreement between the parties dated 30th April 2004, i.e., ‘Joint Development Agreement’¹[‘JDA’, for short] to be “revoked rescinded and terminated.” The JDA was entered into regarding the construction of residential apartments within a period of 24 months, on a turnkey basis.

2.2 Said construction was to be completed by 31st October 2006. However, the same could not be done. Legal notice intimating the cancellation of the JDA was issued on 23rd March 2007, and eventually, the subject Original Suit came to be filed.

2.3 The learned Trial Court eventually concluded vide judgment and order dated 2nd January 2017 that the plaintiffs could not prove that the construction made was in violation of the JDA and instead, the defendants proved that the construction made by them was in accordance thereof. It was held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the declaration and permanent injunction, as prayed for.

2.4 In the pendency of the above proceedings, record reveals that the counsel for the defendants undertook, on two occasions, i.e., 11th July 2007 and 13th August 2007 that they will not alienate the subject property to any third person. Allegedly, however, such undertaking was not abided by, which led to the filing of Interlocutory Application No.3 that came to be registered as Civil Misc. Application No.38 of 2011 under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908²[Hereafter ‘CPC’].

2.5 The concerned Court framed the following issues :

“1) Whether the petitioners have made out a case of breach or willful disobedience by the respondents of order passed by this court in pursuance of undertaking given by the defendant and order of injunction dated 17.11.2007 beyond all reasonable doubts?

2) What order?”

2.6 The Court considered the jurisdiction which has been agitated, observing that the said power is punitive in nature and akin to imposing punishment for civil contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It was concluded as under :

“38. It is significant to note that advocate for petitioners have produced 10 photos of suit property, which depict that suit property is still vacant and foundation is lying. But, here in this case, the petitioners have contended that the flats were sold by the respondents inspite of Court Order. Moreover,, the description of the suit property is incomplete and ambiguous. Therefore, the averment/contention of the petitioners is not believable.

39. In view of aforesaid reasons and observations made, I can safely conclude that the petitioners are failed to prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt that the respondents are knowingly and willfully disobeyed the injunction order of this Court. : There is no sufficient and satisfactory materials on record to come to conclusion that the respondents have knowingly and willfully disobeyed and committed the breach of order of this Court. Hence, respondents are entitled for benefit of doubt. Therefore, I answer aforesaid point No.1 in Negative.

40. Point No.2 : For the foregoing reasons a