An injunction order must be unambiguous and reasonably capable of only one interpretation to establish a violation.

1. Heard the learned counsel, Mr. Jitenda Kishore Verma, appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel, Mr. Nawal Kishore Singh, appearing on behalf of the opposite party.

2. This civil revision application has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 01.09.2009 passed in Misc. Appeal No.125 of 2005 by the learned 3rd Addl. District Judge, Saran at Chapra whereby the lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order dated 19.08.2005 passed by the learned 4th Subordinate Judge, Saran at Chapra in Misc. case No.3 of 2002 allowing the application filed by the opposite party under Order 39 Rule 2A C.P.C.

3. It appears that a partition suit No.9 of 1997 was filed by the plaintiff opposite party. During the pendency of the said partition suit, an injunction application was filed. On 02.07.1999 the trial Court passed the order to the effect that “I am of the opinion that both the parties should be restrained either from dispossessing from the suit properties in any manner or from changing the status quo till final hearing of the suit.” After this order, the opposite filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2A for punishment to the petitioner on the ground that in violation of this order, the defendant have sold some of the properties to the third person. The trial Court allowed the application holding that the petitioner violated the injunction order and punished the petitioner to simple imprisonment for one month. Against the said order, Misc. Appeal was filed before the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal.

4. The leaned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no specific order directing the parties not to sell the property. The application for injunction was filed by the petitioner and the allegation was made from both the side that the other party is trying to disposses. Considering these aspects of the matter, the Court below instead of passing a clear restrained order passed the order as quoted above. Since the order passed by the Court below is capable of two interpretation and since there was no clear injunction order injuncting the petitioner to transfer the property, there is no question of violation of the order arises and moreover so far status quo order is concerned, the Court below has not investigated or recorded any finding regarding the status of the suit property and status quo order has been passed. Therefore, there cannot be any violation of the order which is capable of two interpretations.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that the petitioner has sold more than his share and he will sell all the properties then the partition suit will became infructuous and in fact the Court below has passed the order restraining the parties from disposing the other party, therefore, the Court below has rightly held that the petitioner has violated the injunction order and as such has rightly punished. In such view of the matter in revisional jurisdiction, the order cannot be interfered with.

6. In A.I.R. 1961 SC 221, the State of Bihar Vs. Rani Sonabati Kumari, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a party proceeded against for disobedience of an order of injunction cannot be held to have willfully disobeyed the order provided two conditions are satisfied (1) that the order was unambiguous and was reasonably capable of more than one interpretation. (2) That the party being proceeded against in fact did not intend to disobey order but conducted in accordance with his interpretation of the order. In the present case at our hand as quoted above, there is no restrained order / injunction order restraining any of the parties from transferring the suit property. So far status quo order is concerned also, it appears that the Court below has not ascertained as to what was the status quo which the Court desired to protect. In such circumstances in view of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cas