The main legal point established in the judgment is that the proper remedy for violation of an injunction order under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is to file an application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC, and that filing a contempt petition under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 before the High Court would not be the proper remedy.

1. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondents as to the maintainability of these contempt petitions before this Court. The question raised by the learned counsel for the respondents is that there is a specific provision under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which provides the remedy for violation of an interim injunction passed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the said Code. That remedy is provided by Order 39 Rule 2A. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the provisions of Order 39 Rule 2A are both remedial and punitive. He submits that in the present case, the contempt petitions have been filed stating that there have been violations of the injunction order passed by this Court on 12.5.1999 in CS (OS) 65/1992. The suit has since been transferred to the District Court in view of the raising of the bar of pecuniary jurisdiction. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, a contempt petition under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 does not lie at all and the only remedy for the petitioner is by way of filing an application under Order 39 Rule 2A. He submitted that the contempt petitions, in question, were filed essentially under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. Although, the provisions of Order 39 Rule 2A have also been mentioned.

2. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Govind Sarda v Sartaj Hotels Apartments and Villas Pvt. Ltd and Ors.: 130 (2006) DLT 460. In paragraph 4 of the said decision, it was observed that there was no dispute that if any action under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC was to be taken the same will lie before the District Judge/Additional District Judge before whom the suit was pending. It was further observed that if an action under the Contempt of Courts Act was sought to be taken, then this Court would have the jurisdiction. The issue before the Court was whether a violation of an injunction order passed under Order 39 Rules 1 And 2 CPC could be remedied and/or dealt with under the Contempt of Courts Act when specific provisions under Order 39 Rule 2A were available. After referring to a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Dr Bimal Chand Sen v. Mrs Kamla Mathur: 1982 RLR 553, the learned Judge arrived at the following conclusion:- “7. In view of the judgment of this Court in Dr. Bimal Chandra Sens case (supra) the question raised before me is no more res integra. The proper Court to approach is the Court before whom the suit at present is pending. The proper provision under which the application is required to be made is Order 39 Rule 2A, CPC. Accordingly, I dismiss the present petition with no orders as to costs.”

3. Reliance was also placed on Ishwar Industries Ltd. v. The Crocus Chattels Pvt. Ltd and Others: 128 (2006) DLT 10, which is another decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court. The learned counsel referred to paragraph 11 of this decision to indicate that a distinction has been drawn between a contempt which is of a nature where interference with the administration of justice can be spelt out and a contempt which is a mere violation of an order inter-se the parties. Referring to the said paragraph 11, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in the former case the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 were attracted whereas in the latter the provisions of Order 39 Rule 2A would have to be resorted to. Reliance was also placed on a decision of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Rudraiah v. State of Karnataka and Others: AIR 1982 Karnataka 182. Reference was made to paragraphs 5 and 7 of the said decision which read as under:-“5. In cases of disobedience or breach of injunction order passed temporarily during the pendencey of a suit, either under Rule 1 or 2 of Order