Willful disobedience in civil contempt requires proof of intentional and conscious disregard of a court order, not merely negligent acts.

JUDGMENT :

SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.

1. Heard both sides finally with their consent.

2. Appellants are taking exception to the judgment and order dated 03.04.2025 passed in Civil M. A. No. 92 of 2022 awarding punishment of civil imprisonment for one month under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The self same order has been challenged by the respondent seeking enhancement of punishment by way of cross objection.

3. The parties are related inter-se. The subject matter is land Gut No.84. Appellants had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 250 of 2015 for injunction contending that there was partition in the family and they were allotted land Gut No.84. The respondent had obstructed the peaceful possession. The Trial Court dismissed the suit on 11.02.2020. Being aggrieved appellants preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.29 of 2020.

4. Before the Appellate Court, respondent submitted application Exhibit 12 for injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC. After hearing the parties on 14.07.2022, application Exh.12 was allowed restraining present appellants from creating any third party interest in the suit land admeasuring 2H. 6R. It is contended by the respondent that in defiance of the order, appellant No.2 executed two sale deeds on 18.07.2022 and appellant No.1 executed two sale deeds on 19.07.2022, which amounted to breach of injunction.

5. Learned counsel Mr. Milind Patil Beedkar appearing for the appellants submits that there is no willful disobedience on part of the appellants and they were not liable for the penalty. It is submitted that appellants had no knowledge of the order of injunction passed below Exh.12. It is further submitted that there was no intention to flout the order of injunction. The parties are related inter-se and out of rivalry, respondent filed proceeding under Order 39 Rule 2-A of CPC. It is further submitted that no prejudice is caused to the respondent as he is not claiming title over Gut No.84 and the alienation would be subject outcome of the appeal. It is further submitted that the appellants have tendered apology. Considering their ages, a lenient view should have been adopted.

6. Appellant in the cross objection would submit that in all four sale deeds were executed and the false statements were made before the registering authority which would amount to willful disobedience. It is submitted that appellants had knowledge. They were present for the hearing. The order in question was signed on 14.07.2022 itself. It is submitted that considering the gravity of the mischief, punishment needs to be enhanced.

7. I have considered rival submissions of the parties. They are related inter-se. In the partition, they were allotted Gut No.84 of which they were in possession. Their Regular Civil Suit No.250 of 2015 for injunction was dismissed and against that Regular Civil Appeal No.29 of 2020 was preferred. Application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 was filed at Exh.12 by the respondent. On 14.07.2022 order of injunction was passed. It was checked and signed on 18.07.2022.

8. Parties have led evidence in Civil Misc. Application No.92 of 2022. By impugned order, appellants are held guilty for breach of the order of injunction and awarded civil imprisonment for one month.

9. Lower Appellate Court held that the appellants were present for hearing of application Exh.12 on 12.07.2022 and they were aware of the proceedings of injunction. The theory put up by the appellants that they were not aware of the order as they were out of station and they were not informed the order of injunction is rightly discarded by the Lower Appellate Cou