The State of Bihar is liable for contempt for disobeying an injunction order passed against it and Order 39, Rule 2(3), Civil P. C. is applicable to the State.

Ahmad, J.

1. This is an appeal by the defendant State of Bihar under Order 43, Rule 1, Civil P. C. against an order made on 31-7-1052, in title suit No. 40 of 1950 holding that

"the issue of notification in question and its publication on 21-5-52 constitute a direct and deliberate breach of the injunction order passed by this Court and as such the same undoubtedly constitutes a gross contempt of the Court by the defendant"

and then finally directing that for the breach of the order of injunction the property of the defendant State of Bihar should under Order 39, Rule 2(3), Civil P. C. be attached to the value of Rs. 5,000/-.

2. The title suit was instituted on 20-11-1950, by the sole plaintiff Rani Sonabati Kumari against the sole defendant State of Bihar for a declaration that the Bihar Land Reforms Act (Bihar Act 30 of 1950) was ultra vires of the Bihar Legislature and was illegal, void, unconstitutional and inoperative and that the defendant had no right to issue any notification under the said Act ox to take possession or otherwise meddle or interfere with the management of the estate in suit. It was further prayed therein that a permanent injunction be issued restraining the defendant, its officers, servants, employees and agents from issuing any notification under the provisions of the said Bihar Land Reforms Act (Bihar Act 30 of 1950) in respect of the plaintiffs estate and also from taking possession of the said estate and from meddling or interfering in any way with the management thereof.

3. On the same day, that is, on 20-11-1950, along with the plaint the plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39, Rule 1, Civil P. C. seeking therein that a temporary injunction be issued against the defendant, its officers, employees, servants or agents restraining them from issuing any notification with regard to the plaintiffs estate under the Bihar Land Reforms Act 1950 (Act 30 of 1950) and from meddling or interfering with the possession of the plaintiff of the properties in suit till the disposal of the case.

4. It appears that on the prayer made in the aforesaid application an ad interim order was passed ex parte on the same day and the defendant was called upon to chow cause why the order should not be made absolute. In answer to that the defendant showed cause, perhaps on 11-12-1950. Therein the main contention submitted was that the Bihar Land Reforms Act 1950 (Act 30 of 1950) was intra vires of the Bihar Legislature, that it did not conflict with any of the provisions of the Constitution of India or any other law in force, and that the facts and circumstances of the case did not disclose any valid and good ground for the issue of an injunction. The court on hearing the parties made the ad interim order of injunction absolute and passed the following order on 19-3-1951:

"Injunction matter taken up with T. S. No. 36 of 1950 and as per order passed in that suit the plaintiffs prayer for temporary injunction is allowed and the ad interim order of injunction already passed is made absolute and it is ordered that the defendant shall not issue any notification for taking over possession of the suit properties under ths Land Reforms Act and shall not interfere with or disturb in any manner the plaintiffs possession over these properties under any of the provisions of the aforesaid Act until this suit is finally disposed of by this Court."

5. In the meantime while the suit was still pending for disposal certain amendments were made in the Constitution on 18-6-1951, and Article 31-A and Article 31-B were added anew to the Constitution by Sections 4-5 of the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951. The newly added Article 31B reads :

"Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in Article 31-A, none of the Acts and Regulations specified in the Ninth Schedule nor any of the provisions thereof shall be deemed to be void, or even to have become void, on the ground that such Act, Regulation or provis