Back
1962 Supreme(AP) 19
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : N.KUMARAYYA, P.CHANDRA REDDY
Thummu Koti Nagaiah - Appellant
Versus
D.Sambaiah - Respondent
Decided On : 01-31-62
Disobedience of an injunction issued under Order 39, Rule 1, C. P. C. is punishable under Order 39, Rule 2, Sub-rule (3), C. P. C., read with Section 94 C. P. C.
Headnote:
CONTEMPT OF COURT - ATTACHMENT BEFORE JUDGMENT - VIOLATION OF INJUNCTION - PUNISHMENT - ORDER 39, RULE 1 AND RULE 2, SUB-RULE (3), C. P. C. - SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant sold tobacco to the second and third respondents despite an injunction issued by the court under Order 39, Rule 1, C. P. C. restraining him from alienating any of his moveables. The trial court found the appellant in contempt and committed him to civil prison for six months.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appellant's disobedience of the injunction was punishable under Order 39, Rule 2, Sub-rule (3), C. P. C., read with Section 94 C. P. C. The court found that the appellant had sold the tobacco to the second and third respondents in violation of the injunction and that the trial court had jurisdiction to punish him for contempt.
Issues: Whether the appellant's disobedience of the injunction issued under Order 39, Rule 1, C. P. C. was punishable under Order 39, Rule 2, Sub-rule (3), C. P. C., read with Section 94 C. P. C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 94 C. P. C. and Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C. P. C. together and concluded that the punishment prescribed by Sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 applies to injunctions issued under either of the two rules. The court rejected the appellant's argument that Sub-rule (3) was inapplicable to injunctions issued under Rule 1 because it was drafted inartistically and did not clearly express the legislature's intent. The court also rejected the appellant's argument that Order 21, Rule 32 read with Section 36 C. P. C. provided an alternative remedy for enforcing injunctions and that Sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 could not be applied to injunctions issued under Rule 1.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal but reduced the punishment imposed on the appellant from six months to two months.
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Guntur, directing the detention of the appellant in a Civil Prison for period of six months.
( 2 ) THE facts material for the purpose of this enquiry may be briefly narrated. The first respondent instituted O. S. No. 48 of 1956, against the appellant in the Subordinate Judges Court, Guntur for recovery of a sum of Rs. 7,664. 00 on the foot of a promissory note executed by the appellant in his favour. Along with the suit, he filed I. A. No. 990 of 1956 for attachment before judgment of the moveables including the tobacco lying in the godown of the appellant and belonging to him. When the petition came up for hearing on 25-4-1956, the first defendant appeared through a lawyer and requested time till 26-4-1956. Thereupon, the Court passed the following order : "notice. Counter and disposal. The defendant not to alienate any of the moveables in the meanwhile. "
( 3 ) NOTWITHSTANDING, this order of injunction, the appellant sold tobacco to the second and third respondents.
( 4 ) WHEN this was brought to the notice of the Subordinate Judge, he issued a notice to the appellant to show cause why he should not be punished for violation of the order mentioned above.
( 5 ) VARIOUS contentions were raised on behalf of the appellant, the chief of them being that he had not sold the tobacco to the second respondent but he merely shifted it to his godown for safe custody, and as such he had not disobeyed the injunction and that even otherwise he could not be punished for violation of an order passed under Order 39, Rule 1, C. P. C.
( 6 ) THE trial Court, on a consideration of the material, found that the appellant effected a sale of the tobacco to respondents 2 and 3 and as such he committed breach of the injunction and that the violation of an order of injunction made under Order 39, Rule 1 was punishable under Order 39, Rule 2, Sub-rule (3) read with Section 94 C. P. C. In the result, the trial Court committed the appellant to civil prison for six months. It is this decision that is now under appeal.
( 7 ) THE finding that the appellant sold the tobacco which he was prohibited from disposing of is not canvassed before us. The only point pressed upon us is that the order of detention for violating the injunction issued under Order 39, Rule 1 C. P. C. is wholly without jurisdiction. It was suggested that disobedience of an order of injunction made under Order 39, Rule 1 C. P. C. would not attract Sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 of Order 39 C. P. C. , as that rule governs only breach of injunction issued under Rule 2.
( 8 ) IN order to appreciate this contention, it is useful to reproduce the relevant statutory provisions. Section 94 C. P. C. omitting the unnecessary portions, reads :"in order to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated the Court may, if it is so prescribed- XXXX (c) grant a temporary injunction and in case of disobedience, commit the person guilty thereof to the Civil prison and order that his property be attached and sold;"
( 9 ) WE will now turn to Order 39, C. P. C. , which also provides for the issue of temporary injunctions and for punishment for disobedience of such injunctions. Rule 1 enacts :"where in any suit it is proved by affidavit of otherwise- (a) that any properly in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree; or (b) that the defendant threatens or (intends to remove or dispose of his property with a view to defraud his creditors; XXX the court may by order grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act, or make such other order for the purpose of staying and preventing the wasting, damaging, alienation, sale, removal or disposition of the property as the Court thinks fit, until the disposal of the suit or until further orders. "
( 10 ) WE are unconcerned with Sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 2 of Order 39, the only rule material for the pur
