SHIVASHANKAR BHAT, J.

( 1 ) THERE was an order of temporary injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the property in question by the plaintiff. The finding is that the 1st defendant has trespassed into the land and removed a tree. His explanation that such removal was a bona fide action, as per the direction issued by the Karnataka Electricity Board authority has not been accepted by the courts below. The learned Munsiff directed that the first defendant shall be detained in civil prison for a period of one month. That order was affirmed by the lower appellate court.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Krishnappa, contends that the detention of a person under Rule 2a (1) of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not a matter of course ; there is a discretion vested in the court either to attach the property of the person who has contravened the order of injunction or to detdin him in civil prison. Primarily, the penalty for disobedience of an order of injunction will be, the attachment of the property of the person who has committed the disobedience. The learned counsel relies upon sub-rule (2) of Rule 2a of C. P. C. as aiding him in this interpretation of Rule 2a.

( 3 ) THE defence of the petitioner that his conduct was bona fide in cutting the tree, has not been accepted by both the courts below. This is a question of fact. On this finding, it was argued by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, Sri narasimhamurthy, that the discretion exercised by the trial court, in directing the detention of the first defendant, should not be interfered with by this court.

( 4 ) THE main proposition advanced by Sri Krishnappa, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that, detention in civil prison, as a punishment should be in exceptional cases and that punishment has to be preceded by an order of attachment of the property of the guilty person. As a proposition of law, this contention cannot be accepted. Or. 39 R. 2a (1) reads :-"consequence of disobedience or breach of injunction,- (1) In case of disobedience to any injunction granted or other order made under rule 1 or rule 2 or breach of any of the terms on which the injunction was granted or the order made, the Court granting the injunction or making the order, or any court to which the suit or proceeding is transferred, may order the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached, and may also order such person to be detained in the civil prison for a term not exceeding three months, unless in the meantime the Court directs his release". The present Rule 2a of Or 39 introduced in the year 1976 is the successor of the earlier Or. 39 R 2 (3) The present Rule empowers the transferee court also in addition to the original court which passed the order disobeyed, to punish the person guilty of the disobedience. The essence of the Rule, however, is the same as before.

( 5 ) RULE 2a (1), by the very language of it, confers two alternative powers on the court to punish the person guilty of disobedience. The court may order attachment of the property of the person. Court may also impose the punishment of imprisonment in the civil prison. One mode of punishment is not dependent upon the other mode also being invoked.

( 6 ) FROM the words "and may also order such person to be detained" it was contended that, attachment of property is the primary punishment to be imposed ; further, since detention results in the deprivation of personal liberty, such a punishment should be imposed only under exceptional circumstances.

( 7 ) A person guilty of disobedience of an order of the Court cannot claim the protection of a right to his personal liberty. The power to make an order of temporary injunction cannot be effectively executed without an appropriate power to enforce it and to prevent its disobedience, by imposing punishment. Therefore, the plea based on personal liberty in the context of this

Click Here to Read the rest of this document