2013 Supreme(Raj) 786
NISHA GUPTA
Shankar Lal – Appellant
Versus
Ginni Devi – Respondent
Advocates:
For the Appellant:Akhilesh Kumar Saini, Advocate.
Judgement Key Points
Key Points:
- The interim order merges into the final order once a suit is decreed, making an application under Order 39 Rule 2(a) not maintainable. (!)
- For non-compliance with a decree, the proper remedy is to approach the execution court under Order 21, Rule 32 CPC, not contempt under Order 39 Rule 2A. (!)
- Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 read with section 151 CPC was dismissed; the court held there is no force in the appeal regarding maintainability of Order 39 Rule 2A after decree. (!)
How to determine maintainability of an application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC after a suit is decreed?
What is the remedy for non-compliance with a decree when an interim order has merged into the final order?
What are the conditions under which an application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC is not maintainable?
JUDGMENT
1. - This Misc. Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 read with section 151 of CPC has been preferred against the order dated 24.4.2010 passed in Civil Misc. Case No. 13/09 (12/08) by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 3 Jhunjhunu (Head Quarter Nawalgarh) whereby the application filed under Order 39 Rule 2(a) has been rejected.
2. The short facts of the case are that the appellant plaintiff filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed in which an application for temporary injunction was also filed. After hearing the parties, the court below has ordered not to make any change in the disputed property and to maintain status quo but in spite of this order, the respondent started construction work after 13.11.2007. The present appellant moved an application under Order 39 Rule 2(a) of CPC and to prove his contention affidavit and evidence has also been produced in support of his application under Order 39 Rule 2(a) of CPC which has been rejected. Hence the present appeal.
3. The contention of the appellant is that it was amply proved before the court below that the respondent has committed disobedience of the order of temporary injunction , his application has been wrongl
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
