The court emphasized the importance of upholding court orders and enforcing injunctions, particularly in cases of breach by individuals, including those in positions of authority.

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

( 1 ) ALLOWED subject to just exceptions. CM (M) No. 1289-91/2006

( 2 ) THE respondent had filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction seeking a restraint order against the petitioner from forcibly dispossessing her out of the disputed property E-35, Ashok Nagar, Kachi Colony, OPP. DDA Flat/plot, Near nand Nagri, Delhi. Along with the suit an application for interim relief had been filed and interim orders were granted in favour of the respondent (original plaintiff ). The respondent was dispossessed despite the same.

( 3 ) A decree was passed on 28. 2. 2000 after trial in the suit and the SHO of the local police station was directed to put back the respondent in possession. The judgement and decree also dealt with the aspect of the petitioners being guilty of breach of restraint order granted by the Trial Court on 16. 1. 1991. The compensation was directed at Rs. 500/- per month amounting to Rs. 54,000/- and the petitioner was directed to go through civil imprisonment of one month.

( 4 ) THE appeal filed against this order was dismissed by the learned District judge. The second appeal filed before the Delhi High Court and the Special leave Petition before the Supreme Court were also dismissed.

( 5 ) THE respondent thereafter filed the execution proceedings since though the possession had been restored with the assistance of the local police the amount of damages was still not paid. It is in the execution proceedings that the amount was recovered.

( 6 ) THE petitioners filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the said Code) stating that insofar as the order of detention in civil prison is concerned, the same was punitive in nature and was not executable. This application has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 4. 8. 2006. The petitioners aggrieved by the same have filed the present proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has contended that the object of the provisions of Order 39 Rule 2a of the said Code is to seek enforcement of an order and not to be punitive. It is submitted that in view thereof not only the possession has been restored to the respondent but even the damages for the period of dispossession have been paid in the execution proceedings and thus there should be no question now of the petitioner to be detained in a civil prison. Learned counsel also contends that really speaking the provisions of order 39 Rule 2a of the said Code had to be invoked during the pendency of the suit and not that the same should form a part of the final decree. It is, thus, submitted that even though both the orders were passed on the same day, the order passed on an application under Order 39 Rule 2a of the said Code really does not form part of the decree and is thus not enforceable as such.

( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner referred to the Division Bench judgement of this Court in Dr. Bimal Chander Sen Vs. Mrs. Kamla Mathur and Anr. 22 (1982) DLT (SN) 33 where the distinctions between civil contempt and criminal contempt were pointed out. It was held that a civil contempt of court exists to provide the ultimate sanction against a person who refused to comply with the order of a properly constituted court. This is distinct from the jurisdiction in respect of criminal contempt, which is penal in nature, the aim being to protect the public interest in ensuring that the administration of justice is duly protected.

( 9 ) LEARNED counsel also referred to the views expressed by the learned single judge of the Allahabad High Court in Sitaram Vs. Ganesh Das AIR 1973 Allahabad 449. It was observed in para 4 as under:"4. The purpose of Order 39, Rule 2-A, Civil P. C. is to enforce the order of injunction. It is a provision which permits the Court to execute the injunction order. Its provisions are similar to the provisions of Order 21, Rule 32, Civil p. C. which provi