The court held that the matter of disobedience or breach of an injunction order should be brought to the notice of the court that granted the injunction or any court to which the suit or proceeding is transferred.

1. Heared counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the sole opposite party.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 30.4.2007, whereby and whereunder, the Munsif, Bhabua in Title Suit No. 4 of 1998 had issue certain directions to the Officer Incharge, Bhabua Police Station to get the suit Pasta free from any impediment or encroachment and to impediment the order of the court by restraining the defendant-petitioners from raising any further hindrances on the suit land till pendency of the suit, in terms of the order of injunction dated 27.8.2004 passed by the District Judge, Kaimur in Misc. Appeal No. 5 of 2004.

3. Mr. Kamal Nayan Choubey, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant-petitioner has made a very short but an attractive submission. He submits that the impugned order which has been passed by the court below (Munsif) on an application filed by the sole opposite party was itself not maitainable, in as much as, the order of injuction was passed by the appellate court, the Court of District Judge, Bhabua in Misc. Appeal No. 5 of 2004 and as such in terms of Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, even if the allegation of violation of the injuction order was to be looked into for any purpose whatsoever, it could be done by the Court of the District Judge, Bhabua who alone could have entertained such plea of the opposite party.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Omprakash Upadhayay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the sole opposite party submits that as nothing was pending before the District Judge after disposal of the miscellaneous appeal, the question of violation of injunction order passed by the District Judge could have been gone into by the Court of Munsif itself who was in seisin of the matter, i.e.. Title Suit No. 4 of 1998.

5. Having given anxious consideration to the aforementioned submisssions, this Court is of the view that entire process adopted in relation to violation of injunction order of the court was contrary to the provisions made in the Code of Civil Procedure. Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the C.P.C. lays down the manner in which such complaint regarding violation of an order of injunction has to be brought. Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the C.P.C. reads as follows:

"2A. Consequence of disobedience or breach of injunction.(1) In the case of disobedience of 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."

6. From the reading of the aforementioned provisions it would become clear that the matter relating to disobedience or breach of order of injunction has to be brought to the notice of the court which granted injunction order or any court to which the suit or proceeding is transferred and only that court may pass order for attachment of property or to be detained the person concerned in civil prison. Apparently, the District Judge while granting injunction and passing the order in Misc. Appeal No. 5 of 2004 did not transfer the suit to the Munsif and the Munsif, Bhabua cannot be a transferee court under Order- XXXIX Rule 2A of the C.P.C. That would leave the matter regarding disobedience or breach of the injunction order to be brought only before the court who has granted injunction order or has made such order. On the own showing of the opposite party, such prayer for injunction was in fact refused by the Munsif, Bhabua and in fact his order was set aside while granting injunction by the District Judge in Misc. Appeal No. 5 of 2004.

7. In that view of the matter, any allegation as has been sought to be press