The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to consider applications under Order 39 Rule 2 (A) separately from the merits of the suit, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the dignity of the court and the consequences of breaching injunction orders.

HARI NATH TILHARI, J.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner Mr. S. Harish Kumar and Smt. Hymavathi for respondent.

( 2 ) THIS revision petition arises from the order dated 4. 7. 1998 whereby the Trial Court has ordered that the consideration and decision of the application under Order 39 Rule 2 (A), CPC shall be decided along with the merits of the case i. e. I. A. 5 and 8 will be considered along with the merits of the case i. e. , the suit.

( 3 ) THE facts of the case in the nut-shell are that, in the suit for specific performance of contract to execute the agreement of lease and to enforce the agreement of contract of lease, the plaintiff has moved an application under Order 39 seeking injunction directing the deferfdant not to alienate the suit property in any manner. The Court granted the injunction order. Thereafter, according to the plaintiff, defendant committed breach of injunction order by alienating the property to some third person and the plaintiff moved the application under Order 39 Rule 2 (A) of the Code seeking action for breach of injunction order. As pointed out by the learned Counsel as well, to prove his contention the plaintiff has appeared in witness-box and has examined the witness and produced the evidence and the defendant has also produced his evidence consisting of oral witness and four documents. The Court observes that,"1 have perused the oral and documentary evidence on both the sides. "thereafter, it passes the order,"considering the age of the suit and stage of the case, if these two applications are considered along with the merits of the case that will meet the ends of justice, as the applications leads to multiplicity of proceedings. " so, it passed the order that those applications will be considered along with the mertis of the case.

( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the scope of suit is a distinct matter while breach of injunction order and proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2 (A) stands on a different footing. The two cases have to be considered separately. He contended that so far as merits of the suit are concerned, if the plaintiff proves his claim, suit has to be decreed. If the plaintiff, according to the Trial Court fails to establish his case, suit may be dismissed. But, decreeing of suit will not affect on the question of breach if any committed by the defendant-respondent. It is a separate matter and the Court had to consider whether the breach of injunction order had been committed by the respondent and after considering the evidence, even the Court below can postpone it to decide along with the suit. The learned Counsel contended that court below had acted illegally when postponing the decision when it says, "i have perused the oral and documentary evidence of the parties on both sides", then it is the duty of the court to decide the matter in one way or other. Learned Counsel contended that postponment of decision or rejection of application simply on the ground that on merits the suit has been filed to prove breach of order of the Court, that may give encouragement to the litigants to commit breach of the order. In such circumstances, it was the duty of the Court to decide the application under Order Rule 39 2 (A ). In support of his application, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner placed reliance on the decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of Gyan Chand Jain and Ors. v. XIIIth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Agra and ors.

( 5 ) ON behalf of the respondent, Smt. Hymavathy submitted that the order may not amount to be a case decided. She submitted that for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 115. the first ingredient that has to be established is that the order amounts to a case decided. She with all fairness submitted that it might be a case where applicant can move the court under Article 227 for exercise of powers of superintendence and if the Court would have thought of any jurisdictional error,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document